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.

 

Judge orders deported asylum seekers to be returned to US

page: 2
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Some days I can't tell if you all want or don't want our immigration laws followed.

Fact: If you are from certain Central American countries, you can show up at the U.S./Mexico port of entry and request asylum. You are entitled to an asylum hearing, to determine whether you will be granted asylum or deported to your home country. Only about twenty percent of all asylum seekers are actually granted asylum.

That's the system. Each and every person who follows that process is following U.S. immigration law to the letter.

Anyone deported without said asylum hearing was deported in violation of U.S. immigration law.

Now if they crossed anywhere but a U.S./Mexico port of entry, that's another story.




posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
What is unconstitutional about tightening asylum law? Especially if it is done by the AG?


Strawman. Not giving people due process is unconstitutional.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy


Now if they crossed anywhere but a U.S./Mexico port of entry, that's another story.
No. It's the same story. Because the law says it doesn't matter where one crosses the border.

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 12/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chris_stibrany

Except that he has been after her since 2015.



www.politico.com...



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: chris_stibrany

Once again a judge overstepping his authority.

These judges need to be impeached and removed from office.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: usernameconspiracy


Now if they crossed anywhere but a U.S./Mexico port of entry, that's another story.
No. It's the same story. Because the law says it doesn't matter where one crosses the border.

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

www.law.cornell.edu...
'


8 USC 1158 - Asylum established Asylum requirements. That law also gives the AG the authority to designate individuals/groups who are not covered under the Asylum process. The law also says judicial review of designations are a no go for the courts.


(3) Limitation on judicial review

No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).


Each relevant sections has this as a requirement regarding judicial review.

1158 allows the AG to determine by regulation (NOT law) what other offenses that would make a person seeking asylum / refugee status denied / deportable.


8 USC 1227 - Deportable Aliens - This section lays out under what criteria they can be denied / deported. It also notes that the AG can add, by regulation, other criteria that can make an illegal alien deportable.

Also - The asylum ban is not a complete ban. Illegally entering the US makes ones request for asylum (outside of a port of entry) invalid. As both statutes show its completely legal for this designation to occur. You can enter the US outside a port of entry and request asylum. The asylum will not be granted.

The judge needs to be impeached and removed from the bench.
edit on 20-12-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


The law also says judicial review of designations are a no go for the courts.
Yeah. If it applies to the exceptions of paragraph 2. This doesn't.


1158 allows the AG to determine by regulation (NOT law) what other offenses that would make a person seeking asylum / refugee status denied / deportable.
But it does not allow the AG to prohibit application for asylum or the legal process of determination of status, because that is a matter of law.




8 USC 1227 - Deportable Aliens - This section lays out under what criteria they can be denied / deported.
Section 1227 does not address asylum requests.



Illegally entering the US makes ones request for asylum (outside of a port of entry) invalid.
That is not what the law says.



edit on 12/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Yeah. If it applies to the exceptions of paragraph 2. This doesn't.

Designations - it does.


originally posted by: Phage
But it does not allow the AG to prohibit application for asylum or the legal process of determination of status, because that is a matter of law.

and the law says the AG can designate other violations of US law as grounds for denial. That would include illegally entering the US. The other section you are ignoring is where it states a credibility review is done. Its incumbent on the alien to justify their claim and support it with evidence. Illegally entering the US is also a breach of that section under the current directive.



originally posted by: Phage
Section 1227 does not address asylum requests.

Really?

(1) Inadmissible at time of entry or of adjustment of status or violates status
(A) Inadmissible aliens

Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable.
(B) Present in violation of law


Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable.


Apparently it is - First section of 8 USC 1227. Trying to play the semantics game on this one wont work. 8 USC 1158/8 USC 1227 are linked and the laws rely on each other.


originally posted by: Phage
That is not what the law says.


It is what it says. Had you read down further it allows the AG to designate individuals / groups who do not qualify. 8 USC 1227 gives the AG to designate any other legal violation as grounds for denial of Asylum / Refugee status.

The section in question dealing with entry via non ports of entry does not prevent the person from applying for asylum. It prevents the asylum request from being approved. Again the designation only applies to people who enter illegally. Enter at a port of entry and you are processed via procedures established.

Contrary to what the left likes to claim Domestic law and international law / treaties dealing with asylum and refugee status is not absolute nor is it a right granted by the US Constitution. Further internal law / treaties cannot grant authority / designations that conflict with domestic law. Our Constitution takes precedence (Scotus rulings in the head money cases).


2 other things people forget about. The Supreme Court upheld potus's ability to designate groups of people who are prohibited from entering the US. Secondly those activist district judges and appeals circuits got spanked by the Supreme Court for ignoring already established law and supreme court rulings on presidential authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The district courts were warned that it they do not stop with these types of antics the Supreme Court will be forced to get involved and end it for them. Appeals circuits got spanked for failing to reign in the district judges with their rulings and nationwide application - just as this most recent judge did.



edit on 20-12-2018 by Xcathdra because:Fixed type from 1127 to 1227.

edit on 20-12-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Everything is getting freaking crazy lately 😦

Judges flipping out.

Politicians and officials all going nuts 😀


Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Apparently it is - First section of 8 USC 1227. Trying to play the semantics game on this one wont work. 8 USC 1158/8 USC 1227 are linked and the laws rely on each other.
Asylum law says that any person can apply for asylum regardless of their legal status or where they enter the country.




The other section you are ignoring is where it states a credibility review is done.

I'm not ignoring it at all. Did these deportees appear before a judge? If so, there would seem to be no grounds for the decision. However, since their cases are apparently still pending, it would seem to not be the case.

1225:


(III) Review of determination
The Attorney General shall provide by regulation and upon the alien’s request for prompt review by an immigration judge of a determination under subclause (I) that the alien does not have a credible fear of persecution. Such review shall include an opportunity for the alien to be heard and questioned by the immigration judge, either in person or by telephonic or video connection. Review shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date of the determination under subclause (I).

(IV) Mandatory detention
Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, until removed.


Expedited removal of asylum claimants is contrary to the law.

www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 12/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Improper time or place; civil penaltiesAny alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
(c) Marriage fraud

Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud

Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.
(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99–639, § 2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. 101–649, title I, § 121(b)(3), title V, § 543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, § 306(c)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title I, § 105(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–556.)


Again I refer you back to the 2 previous statutes I pointed out where the AG can designate other law violations as grounds for denial of asylum requests / refusal to allow entry.


* - and people who illegally enter can apply for Asylum. The application will be denied, but they can still apply.
* - Deportees are not required to appear before a judge. Immigration courts are not a part of the judicial branch. They are in fact a SUBSET of the Department of Justice.
* - The US Supreme Court has ruled immigration laws and actions taken under those laws are ADMINISTRATIVE and not criminal.
* - The US Supreme Court has ruled deportations are not a punishment.
* - The US Supreme Court has ruled illegal aliens can be held with no right to bond/bail.
* - Scotus has ruled illegal aliens do not have a right to have the government supply a defense lawyer.
* - The scotus ruling dealing with the "Muslin ban" (as the ignorant left likes to use) is applicable to this action in the Presidents favor.



edit on 20-12-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


Deportees are not required to appear before a judge. Immigration courts are not a part of the judicial branch.
Right. But the law says that an asylum applicant whose claim of credible fear has been denied by an asylum officer (under expedited removal) can request a hearing before an immigration judge. They are to be detained (not deported) until a final determination has been made.

It would seem, based on the judge's decision, that these people were deported (under expedited removal) while that determination was in process. That would seem to be in conflict with Section 1225.


Has the SCOTUS ruled that any person in the US can be denied due process under the law?

edit on 12/20/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Along party lines with Roberts breaking the tie by siding with liberal judges.

None the less its a win for the left. A mistake in my opinion but it is a SC ruling.



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's a win for the rule of law, actually.
The law is quite clear. Including 1225.
edit on 12/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's a win for the rule of law, actually.
The law is quite clear. Including 1225.


We arent going to agree on that. You forget the same thing occurred with the "Muslin Ban".



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
Muslin is a type of fabric.

It took how many tries for the admin to finally get that right? Three?

But the thing is, that was a question of presidential authority on a specific matter. One which was not covered by specific law, passed by Congress.
edit on 12/21/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra
Muslin is a type of fabric.

It took how many tries for the admin to finally get that right? Three?

But the thing is, that was a question of presidential authority on a specific matter. One which was not covered by specific law, passed by Congress.


The "ban" prevented them from claiming asylum. They said aliens who have not made it to the US from those countries listed can be blocked. As others liked to point out you have to be in the US to apply for Asylum.

There is no difference between the travel ban and the asylum ban.
edit on 21-12-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




The "ban" prevented them from claiming asylum.

No. It denies them access to legal entry.



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra




The "ban" prevented them from claiming asylum.

No. It denies them access to legal entry.


and, again, you cant claim asylum outside the US.




top topics



 
22
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join