IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags DeSantis , electioneering , florida , immigration

Reply
Old 27th September 2022, 01:16 PM   #641
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,547
Quote:
What Is Illegal Entry to the United States?

U.S. immigration law actually uses the term "improper entry," which has a broad meaning. It's more than just slipping across the U.S. border at an unguarded point. Improper entry can include:

entering or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place other than one designated by U.S. immigration officers (in other words, away from a border inspection point or other port of entry)

eluding examination or inspection by U.S. immigration officers (people have tried everything from digging tunnels to hiding in the trunk of a friend's car)
attempting to enter or obtain entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or willful concealment of a material fact (which might include, for example, lying on a visa application or buying a false green card or other entry document).
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...illegally.html
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:19 PM   #642
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I mean, this is supposed to be a forum of "critical thought". This is just embarrassing.
LOL!

This from a guy who claims that asylum seekers are gaming the system by asking for asylum and then gives a hypothetical example of them not gaming the system (i.e. not asking for asylum) to prove that they are gaming the system.

Proof not everyone got too far in school. . .

Last edited by arayder; 27th September 2022 at 01:22 PM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:27 PM   #643
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
..dup..
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:28 PM   #644
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

Good Lord. Like I said, embarrassing. Clearly you won't let facts deter you. Carry on.
I just addressed that law.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:30 PM   #645
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.

Good Lord. Like I said, embarrassing. Clearly you won't let facts deter you. Carry on.
No, you missed the point! Allowing immigrants crossing the border to request asylum assures due process.

One is not surprised considering that you believe these people should be treated like cattle and shipped back to their home countries without regard for their health or condition.

You are the one who should be embarrassed!
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:30 PM   #646
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I just addressed that law.
If they actually entered the US at a non designated port of entry then yes, they are illegal. It doesn't appear to matter if they walk straight into a Border Patrol unit.

Quote:
(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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

edit - it seems the law doesn't actually require entry, just an attempt at entry.

Last edited by RolandRat; 27th September 2022 at 01:34 PM.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:35 PM   #647
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,377
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.
I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong? I don't think you can have it both ways.
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 27th September 2022 at 01:37 PM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:37 PM   #648
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
If they actually entered the US at a non designated port of entry then yes, they are illegal. It doesn't appear to matter if they walk straight into a Border Patrol unit.
It seems to matter if they also have a valid asylum claim. They get in to the country despite that. I don't think judges just forget that at times.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:44 PM   #649
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 6,980
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.
__________________
Cancel my subscription to the resurrection.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:48 PM   #650
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
It seems to matter if they also have a valid asylum claim. They get in to the country despite that. I don't think judges just forget that at times.
Applying for asylum can change their status from illegal to legal but it doesn't change the fact they entered, or attempted to enter, illegally. The change in status means they are allowed to legally remain in the US.

Quote:
Illegal Entry Is Not a Ground of Inadmissibility for Asylum Applicants
Unlike many other categories of applicants for immigration benefits, people seeking asylum in the U.S. are not barred by having made an illegal entry; for example, sneaked across the U.S. border. Huge numbers of past asylum applicants found that entering the U.S. without permission was their only or best way to get to safety and flee the persecution they faced at home.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...or-asylum.html

Last edited by RolandRat; 27th September 2022 at 01:50 PM.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:57 PM   #651
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,954
Now you fellers have failed to get the point. The law isn't the issue. Hell with the sucking law! Mr. Warp doesn't FEEL like letting a buncha criminally diseased foreign-speaking miscolored nwords into HIS country!

Sorry about that nwords, I know it ain't supposed to be polite. But dammit, Warp n me, we get purty hot n patriotic sometimes!
__________________
If you would learn a man's character, give him authority.

If you would ruin a man's character, let him seize power.
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 01:57 PM   #652
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
You are missing the entire damn point that they have already broken the law by crossing illegally.
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I think you have to make up your mind about something. Are you arguing for "but it's the law"? Wasn't it just a few posts ago that you argued against standing on the technicality of law because the law pertaining to Venezuelan refugees was wrong?
Exactly. In one post he tells us he knows what the law is regarding immigrants seeking asylum and thinks it is a bad law that ought to be changed.

Then in subsequent posts he pretends the law doesn’t work in the way he just admitted it does.

Quote:
I don't think you can have it both ways.
Like the Special Master just told Donny Boy's lawyers, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

Last edited by arayder; 27th September 2022 at 02:14 PM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 02:03 PM   #653
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Are the attempts to address the illegal entry issue bickering or foolish? I don't really agree because I think it goes to the heart of what DeSantis did and the support he gets from the right.

The wingers want to establish that the asylum seekers 'entered the country illegally.' Therefore 'they broke the law,' and what do we call people who break the law? As the library cop told Jerry on a Seinfeld episode, "We call them criminals!" That plays into the following right wing meme. "Biden's granting asylum to criminals. Or trying to." As I quoted someone writing on another forum, that's bad because:


So I'm willing to take the 'fool' hit because in this case I think it's important to push back.
Nuh-uh. Facts are facts whether someone likes them or not. It doesn't matter what side you are on or what agenda you want to push. Not one single citation has been produced that stated that they entered legally only that they should not be considered to have and can remain legally. That is important: if any article or person here could find a credible source that states they entered legally, they would have. Those who are criticizing what DeSantis did would have produced the law or Immigration provision stating that. But they haven't. The reason why should be obvious to anyone who isn't in denial.

On the other hand, I've produced several pieces of evidence that support that they entered illegally. But you know what? It doesn't really matter if they did or didn't because they are entitled to apply for asylum and Venezuela is a TPS country. The only reason I'm being adamant about this because ignoring facts because a person just doesn't like the answer is unacceptable. That's what MAGAs do.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 02:07 PM   #654
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.
Let us know when you settle on an argument, Warp.

I think your argument is a case of overly ridged thinking mixed with a dash of prejudice.

It seems to have escaped you that something can be illegal and then it’s not.

The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.

Possession of heroin is illegal. But when you turn in the bag of smack you found on your door step the police don’t arrest you for possession.

In most cities it's illegal to shot a fire arm in the city limits. But when you drill the knife wielding perp who tried to rob and kill you at the ATM it's self defense.

Everybody gets it except you.

Last edited by arayder; 27th September 2022 at 02:10 PM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 02:10 PM   #655
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Applying for asylum can change their status from illegal to legal but it doesn't change the fact they entered, or attempted to enter, illegally. The change in status means they are allowed to legally remain in the US.
Since when do crimes work that way? Is a person guilty of murder right up until the time prosecutor or jury accepts their claim of self defense?

Look, my mind is not fully settled on this. If you think you are correct just show me a judge agreeing with you. Show me that the people lined up in that video I cited earlier (or similar) wind up in court fighting their illegal entry charge as their first experience in the US. Does Yuma really have hundreds of thousands of those cases proceeding every year?

You said "change your status from illegal to legal". OK When does the designation of illegal happen in this process? How does it work? Are you charged with illegal entry and the a few days later they dismiss the charge because you have a valid defense? Where is there even sufficient time in this process for a designation of "illegal"? I don't see it. I see a process that leads to a single judgement of "legal".

Show me otherwise.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 02:13 PM   #656
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 6,980
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.

Does that mean that you weren't breaking the law by speeding?

Whether you are charged or not is independent of whether you broke the law. But you still broke the law, in the above example.
__________________
Cancel my subscription to the resurrection.

Last edited by Warp12; 27th September 2022 at 02:15 PM.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 02:18 PM   #657
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
The cop pulls you over for speeding, which is illegal, but upon seeing your about to deliver 10 months pregnant wife in the passage seat gives you an escort to the hospital.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Does that mean that you weren't breaking the law by speeding?

Whether you are charged or not is independent of whether you broke the law. But you still broke the law, in the above example.
If you understood due process of law you'd know the answer to that question.

Last edited by arayder; 27th September 2022 at 02:25 PM.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 03:30 PM   #658
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Since when do crimes work that way? Is a person guilty of murder right up until the time prosecutor or jury accepts their claim of self defense?

Look, my mind is not fully settled on this. If you think you are correct just show me a judge agreeing with you. Show me that the people lined up in that video I cited earlier (or similar) wind up in court fighting their illegal entry charge as their first experience in the US. Does Yuma really have hundreds of thousands of those cases proceeding every year?

You said "change your status from illegal to legal". OK When does the designation of illegal happen in this process? How does it work? Are you charged with illegal entry and the a few days later they dismiss the charge because you have a valid defense? Where is there even sufficient time in this process for a designation of "illegal"? I don't see it. I see a process that leads to a single judgement of "legal".

Show me otherwise.
I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined. Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?

edit - I would guess that as these guys walked up to the border patrol and handed themselves in, they would have probably said they entered illegally.

Quote:
What Happens to Asylum Seekers Arriving at the U.S. Border?
From 2004 through March 2020, DHS subjected most noncitizens who were encountered by, or presented themselves to, a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes DHS to perform rapid removal of certain individuals.

To help ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes. Importantly, while the process described below is how asylum seekers should be processed under law, at times CBP officers do not properly follow this process.
https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states

Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.

edit 2 -

Found this:

Quote:
Expedited removal is a procedure that allows U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials to rapidly deport noncitizens who are undocumented or who have committed misrepresentation or fraud. Under expedited removal processes, certain noncitizens are deported in as little as a single day without an immigration court hearing or other appearance before a judge.

On July 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a significant expansion of expedited removal. Under the expanded policy, individuals who are undocumented, who entered the U.S. without inspection, and who cannot prove they have resided in the United States for more than two years potentially will be subject to expedited removal. The new expanded expedited removal guidelines took effect immediately, but immigration advocates have challenged the expansion in court.
https://immigrationforum.org/article...n%20or%20fraud.

Last edited by RolandRat; 27th September 2022 at 03:41 PM.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 03:44 PM   #659
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,629
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yeah, it's like totally legal for immigrants to cross a river, navigate a tunnel, or scale a wall to enter into the US. As long as they have a special exception, no problem.
Almost correct, nonetheless, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A: Article 14, dated 10 December 1948, (to which the USA is a signatory), and which states "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".

Seeking asylum is an internationally recognized Human Right, not an exemption!

Glad to see you have caught up with some reality

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Why don't we think for a second here. What if they don't get caught and they go about their merry way, without seeking asylum? Is it illegal then?
Yes, it is, because being in, and remaining in a country illegally is not the same as entering that country without authorisation.
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 03:54 PM   #660
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 6,980
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
<points covered pages ago>

Whatever. A number of countries do have a special exception right now, which is why those migrants are avoiding being deported even upon illegal entry. Whereas others are deported. This has been discussed for pages and pages.

The debate now is about whether entering illegally is...illegal. If you can believe that. Yes, that is what a certain "think tank" of skeptics has put forth. It is brilliant, to say the least.
__________________
Cancel my subscription to the resurrection.
Warp12 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 03:55 PM   #661
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and stupid. It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum. You've demonstrated an absurd reading of that sentence.
Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it. A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally. If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande or slip in at the Yuma Gap.

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.

Quote:
Inspection is the formal process of determining whether a noncitizen may lawfully enter the United States.
Quote:
To lawfully enter the United States, a noncitizen must apply and present himself or herself in person to an immigration officer at a U.S. port of entry when the port is open for inspection.
There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You're not even attaching that to the requirement that they enter outside of a checkpoint. Isn't it obvious that you are reading that sentence incorrectly? Your interpretation would make it impossible to request asylum anywhere except an embassy.
Rolling my eyes at such an absurd claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
"Under Title 8, those who attempt to enter the United States without authorization, and who are unable to establish a legal basis to remain in the United States (such as a valid asylum claim), will be quickly removed."

IOW: they entered illegally but can remain legally if they have a valid asylum claim. Nowhere does it mention exceptions for TPS countries like Venezuela.
What the hell does that post above have to do with checkpoints or embassies?
A 'legal basis to remain' includes a "valid asylum claim" as in, oh, I dunno....like being from a country that has TPS status. But they have to apply for asylum while on US soil...which is why they cross illegally in the first place. It's not just granted by thinking about it.

I'm not the one who is reading the sentence incorrectly.


Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
At this point it's not even clear that the requirement to enter at a checkpoint isn't trumped by the asylum laws.
It's very clear to those who bother to read the evidence provided by not only me, but by Roland Rat. I also had the same info from NOLO but he beat me to it.


Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
If this is such a slam dunk then find a good argument.
The irony of that coming from someone who has failed to present any evidence that asylum seekers entering the US by means other than presenting themselves at a port of entry is legal.

It's like trying to argue that the election wasn't stolen with election deniers. Facts don't matter.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 04:06 PM   #662
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Whatever. A number of countries do have a special exception right now, which is why those migrants are avoiding being deported even upon illegal entry. Whereas others are deported. This has been discussed for pages and pages.

The debate now is about whether entering illegally is...illegal. If you can believe that. Yes, that is what a certain "think tank" of skeptics has put forth. It is brilliant, to say the least.
Dammit, I hate to agree with Warp on anything, but when he's right...however rare that may be...he's still right. Like the saying goes, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day".
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 04:11 PM   #663
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined. Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?

edit - I would guess that as these guys walked up to the border patrol and handed themselves in, they would have probably said they entered illegally.



https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states

Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.

edit 2 -

Found this:



https://immigrationforum.org/article...n%20or%20fraud.
Thanks for being a voice of reason and sanity here. I was getting close to the 'pulling my hair out' in frustration stage.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 04:19 PM   #664
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,144
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
If you understood due process of law you'd know the answer to that question.
. . .crickets. . .
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:11 PM   #665
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it.
Hold on for a second please. I don't know why you need evidence for a point we apparently agree on. See next quote.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally.
OK. If you'll go back to where you got the quote from me that I highlighted in yellow above you'll see that I didn't think you were including this condition.

So I think we agree here? A person who shows up unauthorized, without passport or visa, at a checkpoint can apply for asylum and not be an illegal, correct?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande...
Yes, some do. This has been pointed out before. Also RolandRat's citations which you appear to like and which I haven't finished reading support the claim that some people swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side, not immigration on the US side.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
... or slip in at the Yuma Gap. [/b]
Are you referring to the video I posted? That wasn't people "slipping in". It was people obviously with full intentions to park themselves right where USBP would find them. It has since occurred to me that the one's shown were actually on the correct side of the border.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.
That's your interpretation and I'm not accepting it because I don't you have the skill (I don't either) and I don't see judges acting on your interpretation. There are other laws, protocols, and treaties impacting this. There is no guarantee that taking one law out of context will lead to a correct understanding.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:16 PM   #666
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,640
It seems fairly clear to me that if someone goes to a designated US port of entry and requests admission for purposes of gaining asylum they are NOT attempting to enter the United States illegally. Below is a quote from an Arizona law firm that specializes on immigration law.
Quote:
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border. Green Evans Schroeder Immigration Legal Defense
My understanding is, if an asylum seeker goes to a port of entry and requests admission in order to request asylum they are not attempting to enter illegally. How could they be when they have the right under international and US law to seek asylum?

Quote:
Yes, seeking asylum is legal—even during a pandemic. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to request the opportunity to apply for asylum. "There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says IRC director of asylum and immigration legal services Olga Byrne [director, International Rescue Committee]. “You just have to show up." IRC link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:33 PM   #667
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,900
Think back to the bad old days of US embassies (i.e. US territory) in "bad" countries, e.g. Communist Bloc. People seeking asylum in the USA would sneak in the gate, climb over walls, all sort of ways, just to get into the embassy. Technically, they were "breaching the border, thus entering the USA via an illegal means". Once inside, and only once inside, they would try to claim asylum. This is exactly the same situation for many refugees on the southern border today.

In the past, the USA usually viewed such claims favourably, even covertly assisting in some cases. But then again, most of the asylum-seekers were white Caucasians...
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:39 PM   #668
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,640
Asylum seekers who come across the border on their own, enter the United States at a clandestine spot and THEN at some point request asylum, I can agree that they did enter the US illegally. The Arizona law firm makes that clear.

By the way, I'm not tearing my hair out over this discussion. I have too little to spare!
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:45 PM   #669
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
I can't be arsed to start going through USA case law anymore just to convince someone who is niggling about a point that really doesn't even matter. I have shown you the actual law about how illegal entry is defined.
Yes, but as has been explained multiple times now, there also other laws. You can't just pull law one out of the code and think you have the full picture.

And no one is forcing you to participate.

Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Are you trying to say the immigrants that this thread is about entered legally?
No, there is not enough information to make that statement yet. The best information I recall in support of "illegal entry" is a few news reports saying some of them entered illegally but people get that wrong all the time. Even the well meaning people get that wrong at times.

They seem to be free and not restricted as if they have to face a trial for their illegal entry. I don't see that granting them asylum allows them to get off scot free from a crime so they could still be charged with that and have it on their record. Even though they can't be deported, they would still have that on their record and that could make difference to them down line.

What do you think the best info is that all, or even some, of these people entered illegally? You don't have to research it or provide a link, just tell me what you recall the best evidence is for that and I'll track it down.

Thanks for your earlier link. I'm still reading it.

On the other hand, I don't know you want me to get out of the links below. They are good references on the asylum process, but they don't seem to be addressing anything at issue in this thread.

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...-united-states
https://immigrationforum.org/article...n%20or%20fraud.

Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Looks to me like they catch you near the border, you have no papers or can provide no proof you are in the country legally, they assume you are illegal and /yeet. Unless you claim asylum.
Right, if you have no valid reason to be in the country you get kicked out, quickly. There is no dispute about that.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 05:47 PM   #670
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Asylum seekers who come across the border on their own, enter the United States at a clandestine spot and THEN at some point request asylum, I can agree that they did enter the US illegally. The Arizona law firm makes that clear.
Yeah, I agree with that too. And I'll add especially so if it only comes up when they have been caught.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 07:11 PM   #671
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Jesus H. Christ. I've seen some spinning here in my time, but this takes the prize. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that states "It is definitely not illegal to enter the country without passport/visa to request asylum." It doesn't become a fact by you just saying so...or thinking it.
Hold on for a second please. I don't know why you need evidence for a point we apparently agree on. See next quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
A person MUST be inspected and admitted at a port of entry to enter legally.
Oh, good god. ENTERING the US without being inspected at a port of entry is ILLEGAL. APPLYING FOR ASYLUM ONCE THEY HAVE ENTERED IS LEGAL. Do you not understand the difference between "ENTER" and "APPLYING"? Two distinct acts, one illegal, the other not.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. If you'll go back to where you got the quote from me that I highlighted in yellow above you'll see that I didn't think you were including this condition.
The quote clearly says "without authorization" which mean illegally. If you come through a checkpoint (port of entry) then you were authorized to do so. I really didn't think that had to be explained.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. So I think we agree here? A person who shows up unauthorized, without passport or visa, at a checkpoint can apply for asylum and not be an illegal, correct?
If they present themselves at a checkpoint (port of entry) and request asylum, they are then allowed to ENTER legally. The question you have always asked is if entering elsewhere (crossing the Rio or Yuma Gap) means they entered illegally. The answer has always been YES.

Once they are here illegally and then APPLY for asylum, THEN they are not here illegally from that point. That has never been in question. It was the fact that APPLYING does not mean they still didn't ENTER illegally. It's really not that hard. I don't know why you have had such difficulty in understanding that.



Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande...
Yes, some do. This has been pointed out before.
Where?

Quote:
Also RolandRat's citations which you appear to like and which I haven't finished reading support the claim that some people swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side", not immigration on the US side.
Nothing RRat posted in any way suggests that people with Passports/Visas "swim across the Rio to avoid criminals on the Mexican side. An asylum seeker doesn't avoid immigration on the US side; he seeks them out to apply for asylum.


Quote:
Are you referring to the video I posted? That wasn't people "slipping in". It was people obviously with full intentions to park themselves right where USBP would find them. It has since occurred to me that the one's shown were actually on the correct side of the border.
No, I'm not referring to that but to what I said: "If a person has a passport/visa, they don't need to wade across the damn Rio Grande or slip in at the Yuma Gap.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Quote:
There is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.
That's your interpretation
No, it's not my damn interpretation! If you bothered to actually read the link there is NO exemption stated that an asylum seeker can enter LEGALLY without presenting himself for inspection at a port of entry.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
and I'm not accepting it because I don't you have the skill (I don't either) and I don't see judges acting on your interpretation. .
Since it wasn't my "interpretation" that the website I linked to did NOT state an exception for asylum seekers, it doesn't matter whether you accept it or not. The only SKILL you need is to be able to comprehend what is and isn't stated in the link.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
There are other laws, protocols, and treaties impacting this. There is no guarantee that taking one law out of context will lead to a correct understanding
Yes....which I have been taken into consideration by looking at the dates of the documents to assure they are current. No law was taken out of context.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate and stupid.
The irony...it burns!
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 07:35 PM   #672
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,629
So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 08:35 PM   #673
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Do you not understand the difference between "ENTER" and "APPLYING"? Two distinct acts, one illegal, the other not.
!
No I don't understand that difference. It's one of the differences I'm tryng to clear up.

You're kind of helping though. The situation is that I'm learning because of you but not from you. It would help if you could minimize the wall of text and just make your points succinctly.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 08:36 PM   #674
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?

Freaking amazing that question has to be asked, but it does have to be asked.

ETA: Don't think you meant that for me but the answer is "no".

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 27th September 2022 at 09:17 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 09:47 PM   #675
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,900
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?
Technically, and only technically, you have. So the answer is "yes".

The situation is the staff there do not have to accept your application for asylum. You could be adjudged to be a prankster or a local lunatic who managed to evade the machine-gun nests, etc. In which case you would be quietly but firmly escorted back out the gate and into the street...in the host country's territory. How sad.

Or you could be James Bond or Mission Impossible, i.e. white and Caucasian, and welcomed with open arms.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 10:58 PM   #676
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,377
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yes, I can have it both ways. Because I am not saying that these Venezuelans do not fall under a special exception. I am not saying they are technically here illegally. It is my opinion that the law sucks. As I have already mentioned. In Warp12's view, they are still illegals...but that is just my feeling on the matter. I know the law does not agree.

Now, that is a lot different than saying, "the special exception doesn't exist or apply to them". It would be one thing to say, "it shouldn't be illegal for them to cross...illegally". It is another to claim that what they did is not against clearly written law.
So if the law is in their favor, the law sucks. If the law is against them, violating it makes them a criminal.

In other words your policy is "screw those guys, I don't like them".
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 11:16 PM   #677
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No I don't understand that difference. It's one of the differences I'm tryng to clear up.

Well, there's your problem then. If you don't understand the difference between entering a country and applying for something once you're in, then I can't help you. Maybe a dictionary can.

Quote:
You're kind of helping though. The situation is that I'm learning because of you but not from you. It would help if you could minimize the wall of text and just make your points succinctly.
You mean "succinctly" like these?

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
They are entering illegally but they aren't here illegally once they turn themselves in and apply for asylum.
and

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Who said they were "mostly professionals"? What Covid protocols are they not adhering to? Mask requirements that don't exist in Texas?

If corners are cut and errors made, then I suggest that is not the fault or responsibility of the Venezuelans.

Please stop referring to them as "illegals". Yes, you keep repeating that they entered illegally, but their status is legal once they apply for asylum. As much as you may not like it, it does not change that fact.
and

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
They are entering illegally when they cross the border without going through a border check point/immigration control. Crossing the Rio Grande or climbing over, going through or under the "wall" isn't in any way 'legal'. Hiring a coyote to smuggle them across the border wouldn't be necessary if they could enter legally. But once they turn themselves in to border patrol agents and apply for asylum, they are no longer here illegally.

Quote:
Quote:
Tens of thousands of migrants who cross the border illegally from Mexico are released in the United States each month with notices to appear in immigration court to pursue asylum or on humanitarian parole with requirements to report regularly to immigration authorities. Migrants may seek asylum if they enter the country illegally under U.S. and international law, and U.S. authorities have broad authority to grant parole based on individual circumstances.
https://www.masslive.com/news/2022/0...explained.html

Putting it succinctly didn't seem to help so I quoted evidence. That didn't help you, either. Can't win either way according to you.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 11:31 PM   #678
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,629
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Technically, and only technically, you have. So the answer is "yes".

The situation is the staff there do not have to accept your application for asylum. You could be adjudged to be a prankster or a local lunatic who managed to evade the machine-gun nests, etc. In which case you would be quietly but firmly escorted back out the gate and into the street...in the host country's territory. How sad.

Or you could be James Bond or Mission Impossible, i.e. white and Caucasian, and welcomed with open arms.
The US Embassy and Consulate in Auckland allowed me to walk right through the front door. All I had to do is show my NZ driver's (but I had my NZ passport just in case). Of course, I had an appointment, but I did not have a visa or any other documentation that would grant me access to US territory.

NOTE: There were no armed guards, or machine gun nests - I like my Martini's stirred, with a lemon twist... and I wasn't carrying a NOC - I left that at home!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 11:35 PM   #679
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,693
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
So, can I just ask this question?

If I walk into the United States Embassy (which is United States territory) in order to apply for a US-NIV, have I illegally entered US territory because I did not have prior permission to do so?
Nope. Because an embassy is not "US territory":

Quote:
Unfortunately, U.S. embassies and consulates cannot process requests for this form of protection. That's because, under U.S. law, asylum seekers can apply only if they are physically present in the United States (or at least at a U.S. border or other point of entry).

There is a common misconception that U.S. embassies and consulates are basically the same as U.S. soil. It is true that international law protects national embassies and consulates from being destroyed, entered, or searched (without permission) by the government of the country where they are located (the host country).

However, this does not give those embassies or consulates the full status of being part of their home nation's territory. Therefore, U.S. law does not consider asylum seekers at U.S. embassies and consulates to be "physically present in the United States" (or at a U.S. border or point of entry).
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2022, 11:35 PM   #680
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 12,900
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
The US Embassy and Consulate in Auckland allowed me to walk right through the front door. All I had to do is show my NZ driver's (but I had my NZ passport just in case). Of course, I had an appointment, but I did not have a visa or any other documentation that would grant me access to US territory.

NOTE: There were no armed guards, or machine gun nests - I like my Martini's stirred, with a lemon twist... and I wasn't carrying a NOC - I left that at home!
If you had no appointment, you would have met Tony and Luigi, the two professional piano-throwers in US Marines uniform, who would have ensured you would be back out on the street pronto and "having a nice day".
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.