It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: carewemust
One good thing about the protests, is that they should push Congress to take action on Immigration reform. That action will not be what the protestors want, but they are helping to get action taken.
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: 10uoutlaw
read its been a problem for years .
Do you think that asylum seekers are a problem?
Actually they are, or should be, allowed to do exactly that. Not sure that's what's happening though.
They are not supposed to come traipsing across the desert in the middle of nowhere and only claim asylum when caught.
Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own.
They are when they don't follow the law for claiming asylum. They are supposed to present themselves at a legal port of entry and claim asylum there.
www.uscis.gov...
Affirmative Asylum Processing With USCIS
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
Actually, the existing law say that asylum seekers must be on US soil to apply, and that they are not to be charged with the crime of illegal entry unless their claim is found fraudulent. There's an international treaty whose protocols have been incorporated in US refugee/asylum laws.
That's not possible. Laws don't work that way.
www.unhcr.org...
the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees: Non-penalization, Detention and Protection
Article 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees provides as follows:
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
If someone crosses the border illegally, they are allowed, as a defense against their crime, to request asylum.
Affirmative Asylum Processing With USCIS
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
Defensive Asylum Processing with EOIR
A defensive application for asylum occurs when you request asylum as a defense against removal from the U.S. For asylum processing to be defensive, you must be in removal proceedings in immigration court with the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
Nowhere does it mention charging a person with the crime of illegal entry.
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
I know you think that the administration has no choice. No room for discretion. Except when it does. What's the excuse for smoking pot and not being busted by the feds?
Being a victim of gang violence never was an excuse for asylum.
Isn't charging someone with a crime, arresting and jailing them a "penalty"?
I know you think that the administration has no choice.