From your link:
Thank God for the above. Posting one section of law, from a much larger body, is not going to give accurate context. The section you posted seemed to be geared towards those who crossed at legitimate ports of entry. and, seemed to be more about declaring that once inside the US with intent to seek asylum, they are considered here legally. Nothing to do with the method via which they crossed; that being a separate matter.
Of course, now some folks are sure to argue that the DOJ and Judges have it all wrong, too. I am moving on at this point.
I am thrilled you posted this, Warp12, because it highlights the differences in our arguments.
I posted something that actually countered my initial stance, because I'm interested in the finding out the actual reality, not defending a position that's incorrect. I still think this shouldn't happen, but it does seem there are avenues to do it in law.
You, however, read the first paragraph, saw something that supported you, and stopped without reading (or, apparently, even glancing through) the whole document.
I would also point out that the law I posted means the entry is considered legal retroactively if asylum/refugee status is granted. The decision you posted to is about people who are being charged prior to that determination. In terms of my analogy to self-defense, they're being convicted of illegal use of a firearm before they get their trials where they can argue self-defense.
While it seems to be technically allowed within the law, it seems to urinate all over the spirit of it, and I believe it's a loophole that should be closed. Prosecution can wait until the asylum/refugee determination is done, IMO. You obviously disagree, so I agree that we're done here. It's a disagreement of values more so than facts.
