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.
The President and his administration still has to obey the Constitution. Even if you dislike it.
Well Trump's policy is causing an international humanitarian crisis.
originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The President and his administration still has to obey the Constitution. Even if you dislike it.
Well Trump's policy is causing an international humanitarian crisis.
Had Obama followed the Constitution, the crisis level wouldn't be as high in this country as it is. If there is an "international humanitarian crisis, it's not because of the U.S.. No one is capable of saving the world, however, we are designed to helping a limited number through a legal immigration system.
originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
The illegals are criminals. That’s the law
Leftist judges who hold politics above the law need to be replaced
Common trump, say the words...’You’re fired’
Obama did follow the Constitution.
originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Obama did follow the Constitution.
No he didn't. He committed an illegal act when he gave out work permits to DACA and DAPA recipients. Obama had the authority to allow these people to stay in this country, but he had absolutely no legal authority to give them work permits.
originally posted by: Deetermined
originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: SocratesJohnson
What makes you think this woman and her child are illegal. All the article says is that they're asylum seekers from El Salvador.
They were denied an asylum hearing based on Session's new rule eliminating domestic violence and gang violence victims from seeking asylum. The ACLU, with this woman as their client, is suing the DOJ because of that (arbitrary) rule change, which goes against our international refugee treaties and federal law that incorporated refugee/asylum procedure.
Here are the rules for seeking asylum and this woman doesn't fit within that requirement.
Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[3] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.
en.wikipedia.org...
You may qualify for asylum in the U.S. if you have been (or if you fear that you will be) persecuted in your home country either by your government or by persons or groups that your government is unwilling or unable to control because of your political opinion, religion, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.
In particular, if you are a victim of domestic violence, you may under limited circumstances be eligible for asylum—that is, provided that the violence perpetrated against you is motivated by one of the five grounds mentioned above, and that your government is unwilling or unable to protect you from the perpetrator.
In such a case, you should try to show how views prevalent in your home society regarding your and your persecutor’s respective social roles and statuses might explain not only why your government is unwilling or unable to protect you from domestic violence but also, in the first place, why you are a target of persecution on the applicable ground.
That order has kept the policy on hold for a year and a half, and the order remains intact because the Supreme Court in late June upheld it by a tie vote, 4-to-4. That did not mean that the Justices agreed that the order was valid, just that they could not raise a majority to set it aside; that would have taken five votes on the eight-Justice court.
Even if she was given a hearing, I seriously doubt that she would have met the definition of the law based on the following...
www.islawfirm.com...
In this particular case, our client was persecuted by members of Mara-18, a criminal gang heavily present in El Salvador. Gang members were forcing our client to abandon her Christian beliefs, her church, and her pastor who preached against gangs, threatening to kill her if she refused. Attorneys at I.S. law Firm successfully showed that while the goal of our client’s persecutors was to force her to participate in gang activities, they were doing so by trying to overcome our client’s religious convictions and by trying to distance her from her church, which was also opposed to gangs’ criminal activities. We demonstrated that gang members actively sought to punish our client for her strong Christian beliefs, which prevented her from participating in gang activities. We also showed that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control the gangs, as evidenced by the fact that police did not provide any protection to our client. Therefore, our lawyers proved that our client suffered past persecution in El Salvador.
As required for all asylum cases, attorneys at I.S. Law Firm also demonstrated that our client had a well-founded fear of persecution if she was forced to return to her home country, evidenced by the fact that the situation with gang violence in El Salvador has not improved. In fact, objective evidence such as U.S. Department of State and Amnesty International reports indicates that gang killings, gang rape, sexual exploitation of female gang recruits, and other crimes against women and girls are widespread and on the rise in El Salvador. Gangs including Mara-18, also known as 18th Street Gang or M18, and Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS, Mara, and MS-13, have continued their brutal activities, while Salvadoran authorities have remained ineffective and unsupportive toward victims of gang crimes.
So are you saying that you do not think gang violence in el salvador exist?
We also showed that the government of El Salvador was unable or unwilling to control the gangs, as evidenced by the fact that police did not provide any protection to our client.
UNHCR counts 294,000 asylum seekers and refugees in 2017
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala the main source countries
originally posted by: lakenheath24
a reply to: howtonhawky
Seriously, IF she was getting abused, why travel all the way to the states? With Coyotes? Through Mexico? Why not stop at Mexico? Why not go to her own cops. Should every US citizen that is a victim of domestic violence or drug violence go to Canada to seek asylum? What would Canada say? Please explain the difference.
originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: howtonhawky
So are you saying that you do not think gang violence in el salvador exist?
No, I'm saying that based on the law, she would have to prove that her government either refuses to protect or is not capable of protecting her. That would be a tough argument to prove.
No you are mistaken. That has already been proven but the admin decided to suddenly not accept it as a reason for asylum. She simply has to tell her truth and the admin would have to back track on their decision.