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, 11:48 PM   #681
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.


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?

Your quote states to avoid prosecution for illegal entry not that the entry is actually legal.

edit - apologies you actually referenced port of entry. Yes, that is correct. If you approach a designated port of entry and hand yourself in, that is not illegal entry.
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, 11:53 PM   #682
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
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.
That is incorrect. US Embassies are not considered US Territory or 'soil' and therefore cannot accept applications for asylum. They can accept and process 'follow-to-join' applications but those only apply to family members who want to join someone already granted asylum.

Quote:
The I-730 is a refugee/asylee relative petition in what is often called a “follow-to-join” process. If you have been admitted to the U.S. as a refugee or if you were granted status in the U.S. as an asylee, you may be eligible to petition for your spouse and/or unmarried children under the age of 21.
https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-famil...ification.html
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, 11:57 PM   #683
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
Your quote states to avoid prosecution for illegal entry not that the entry is actually legal.

edit - apologies you actually referenced port of entry. Yes, that is correct. If you approach a designated port of entry and hand yourself in, that is not illegal entry.
Which is what I've been saying this whole discussion.

But if you enter without going through a designated port of entry, that is illegal. I really don't know why some people on here are having problems understanding this very simple fact.
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, 11:59 PM   #684
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
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!
You don't need a visa or any other documentation that would grant you access to US territory because a US embassy or consulate are not US Territory.
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 28th September 2022, 12:14 AM   #685
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,553
Also, it appears a judge isn't need to make the decision on whether a person is an illegal entrant, the border staff make that decision:

Quote:
If you are within 100 miles of the U.S. border; sometimes called the "Border Zone," be aware that officers of U.S. Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") are out looking for undocumented immigrants as well. They can subject you to a warrantless search or investigatory detention, and place you in expedited removal proceedings, which are fast tracks to deportation without a hearing. This article does not focus on expedited removal procedures, which follow a different and much shorter timeline.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...is-caught.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 28th September 2022, 12:15 AM   #686
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,553
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Which is what I've been saying this whole discussion.

But if you enter without going through a designated port of entry, that is illegal. I really don't know why some people on here are having problems understanding this very simple fact.
Absolutely, it seems pretty cut and dry to me. UK border staff operate the same way. Your reasons for crossing are not relevant as to determining if you are illegal or not. The simple act of crossing at a non designated point means you are automatically entering illegally.
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 28th September 2022, 12:28 AM   #687
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Wrong


https://www.diffen.com/difference/Consulate_vs_Embassy
Jurisdiction: Even though embassies and consulates are located in another country, they are legally considered territory of the country they represent.

But I wasn't there to seek asylum anyway, so you point and link quotes are moot
__________________
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!

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th September 2022 at 12:32 AM.
smartcooky 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 28th September 2022, 01:25 AM   #688
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 13,018
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
That is incorrect. US Embassies are not considered US Territory or 'soil' and therefore cannot accept applications for asylum. They can accept and process 'follow-to-join' applications but those only apply to family members who want to join someone already granted asylum.


https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/us-famil...ification.html
They can accept asylum applicants. I give you Julian Assange and the Ecuadorian embassy.

The USA wants to have their cake and eat it too by claiming US embassies are not " US territory" when it is convenient to them.
__________________
...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 28th September 2022, 06:14 AM   #689
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
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.
Does this really make sense to you? Your passport could be fake. Are you legal up until the point the guard at the checkpoint establishes it's not?

This makes no sense. You're following the established procedure. Why would the established procedure include a step that you must carry out illegally?
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 28th September 2022, 06:28 AM   #690
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 06:31 AM   #691
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,471
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Does this really make sense to you? Your passport could be fake. Are you legal up until the point the guard at the checkpoint establishes it's not?

This makes no sense. You're following the established procedure. Why would the established procedure include a step that you must carry out illegally?
US immigration policy is like inviting a homeless person over for Thanksgiving, setting out a place for them at the table, and filling the front yard with barbed wire and attack dogs. The place has been set, and if they get through the front yard they can enjoy the meal.

This makes a certain kind of sense for the family, as they can enjoy the warm, fuzzy feeling of being open-minded and generous, while still not having to actually deal with undesirables. As long as they don’t look out the window and ignore the barking, they get the best of both worlds.
__________________
The road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".
Random 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 28th September 2022, 06:45 AM   #692
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.


Well it should be simple to look up the pertinent exception to law, then. The one that clarifies when crossing the border illegally is legal. Just like self-defense laws detail exceptions for shooting people.

So far all of the law just clearly spells out why these crossings ARE illegal.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
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 28th September 2022, 07:03 AM   #693
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
I think I have to agree with RY here. I see it more like self-defense being an excuse for shooting someone, as an example. Yes, murder is a crime, but if you shot someone who was trying to stab you, it's considered justified (not a crime).

I'd view "illegally" crossing the border to request asylum as similarly justified in the law.

But IANAL, etc, etc. Just tossing in a couple cents.
It's just occurred to me I can ask some experts. I live in the southern border zone and occasionally run in to lawyers who work cases like this. I'll just wait for that if I still care.

I think your murder analogy is good but I think the analogy someone else offered earlier may also apply: speeding your wife to the hospital. I think this is probably at that level (and that is assuming the asylum laws don't trump the immigration checkpoint law).

Basically I suspect two possibilities here: One it's justified in law to use your wording and therefore not even illegal in these cases, or so minor a technicality in some cases that it would be perverse to charge someone. I mean let's recall that we aren't talking about people who get fast tracked out, we are talking about the case of people who really turn out to be legitimate and cooperated every step of the way, and on top that the only step that's even questionable is, in many cases, driven by trying to avoid criminal gangs on the Mexican side of the border not by trying to avoid a checkpoint.

So I'm not granting DeSantis or Warp12 even this. It's not warranted yet.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 28th September 2022 at 07:15 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 07:16 AM   #694
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
So I'm not granting DeSantis or Warp12 even this. It's not warranted yet.

I can promise you that DeSantis and Warp12 are not very concerned. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one disputing the law as it is written. So far, after pages of this, nobody has offered up any evidence of law that illegal crossings are legal for asylum seekers.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
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 28th September 2022, 07:20 AM   #695
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I can promise you that DeSantis and Warp12 are not very concerned. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one disputing the law as it is written. So far, after pages of this, nobody has offered up any evidence of law that illegal crossings are legal for asylum seekers.
OK. Then explain how DeSantis isn't then complicit in removing these people from the jurisdiction they should be facing charges in.
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 28th September 2022, 07:26 AM   #696
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. Then explain how DeSantis isn't then complicit in removing these people from the jurisdiction they should be facing charges in.

What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what. I don't care if he is complicit or not; it has nothing to do with your claims.

Furthermore, even if it were determined that the crime is rarely prosecuted in these cases, that does not make their method of entry legal.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 07:27 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 07:32 AM   #697
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what.
It has nothing to do with that. It doesn't have to. It's another topic relevant to the one we are talking about. If you're correct you now have to explain how DeSantis isn't complicit in them evading the law (or don't explain it if you like).
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 28th September 2022, 07:37 AM   #698
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
What does this have to do with your theory that the way they entered the country is not illegal? Nothing, that's what. I don't care if he is complicit or not; it has nothing to do with your claims.

Furthermore, even if it were determined that the crime is rarely prosecuted in these cases, that does not make their method of entry legal.
Wait, I thought you believed that if it isn't prosecuted then it's ok? Or does that only apply to your guys and not the brown people?
wareyin 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 28th September 2022, 07:44 AM   #699
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
It has nothing to do with that. It doesn't have to. It's another topic relevant to the one we are talking about. If you're correct you now have to explain how DeSantis isn't complicit in them evading the law (or don't explain it if you like).

No, I don't have to explain that. It is not a debate that I have championed.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
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 28th September 2022, 07:46 AM   #700
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
No, I don't have to explain that. It is not a debate that I have championed.
OK. So we are leaving that idea that your claim that these migrants are illegals makes DeSantis complicit in further crimes unchallenged. Got it.
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 28th September 2022, 07:46 AM   #701
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Wait, I thought you believed that if it isn't prosecuted then it's ok? Or does that only apply to your guys and not the brown people?

Again, missing the point. Whether you can get away with something is independent of whether it is legal or not. Laws are broken all of the time, and not prosecuted. That doesn't make the action "legal".

In this case, the people knowingly broke the law...probably understanding that the penalties, if any, would be light. It is a misdemeanor charge for a first time offense.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 07:48 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 07:50 AM   #702
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Again, missing the point. Whether you can get away with something is independent of whether it is legal or not. Laws are broken all of the time, and not prosecuted. That doesn't make the action "legal".

In this case, the people knowingly broke the law...probably understanding that the penalties, if any, would be light. It is a misdemeanor charge for a first time offense.
Your advise when it comes to a wealthy white guy was that if it isn't prosecuted, "go for it." Your claim when it's someone who isn't wealthy or white is that even if it isn't prosecuted, it's illegal and shouldn't be done. The "point" is your double standard.
wareyin 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 28th September 2022, 07:52 AM   #703
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. So we are leaving that idea that your claim that these migrants are illegals makes DeSantis complicit in further crimes unchallenged. Got it.

No, I did not say that at all. First off, I am not claiming they are here illegally now, by the letter of the law. They are now asylum seekers.

I am claiming that their method of entry was illegal. Having lost that debate, you seem to be searching for a new one.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
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 28th September 2022, 07:52 AM   #704
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Well it should be simple to look up the pertinent exception to law, then. The one that clarifies when crossing the border illegally is legal. Just like self-defense laws detail exceptions for shooting people.

So far all of the law just clearly spells out why these crossings ARE illegal.
How about 8 USC 1159: Adjustment of status of refugees?

Quote:
(2) Any alien who is found upon inspection and examination by an immigration officer pursuant to paragraph (1) or after a hearing before an immigration judge to be admissible (except as otherwise provided under subsection (c)) as an immigrant under this chapter at the time of the alien's inspection and examination shall, notwithstanding any numerical limitation specified in this chapter, be regarded as lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as of the date of such alien's arrival into the United States.
ETA: That's part of the laws regarding refugee and asylee applications, and tracks pretty well with the shooting analogy. If you kill someone, and investigation/trial doesn't show a good reason, it's murder. Otherwise, it's justified self-defense. Likewise, if you claim asylum/refugee status and investigation/trial shows you don't qualify, it's illegal entry. Otherwise, it's not.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

Last edited by Hellbound; 28th September 2022 at 07:59 AM.
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 07:58 AM   #705
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Your advise when it comes to a wealthy white guy was that if it isn't prosecuted, "go for it." Your claim when it's someone who isn't wealthy or white is that even if it isn't prosecuted, it's illegal and shouldn't be done. The "point" is your double standard.

"Wealthy white guy". That is a fairly desperate attempt to make this a racial issue. Sorry, I'm not going to entertain that. And, if DeSantis is prosecuted, so be it. I have already stated, "let's see the evidence in court". I don't think a double-standards debate will get too far here. After all, Dems seem to be OK with tens of thousands of illegal crossings at our border each month, and some are arguing that it is "legal" for asylum seekers. When it clearly is not.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 08:02 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:03 AM   #706
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
How about 8 USC 1159: Adjustment of status of refugees?



ETA: That's part of the laws regarding refugee and asylee applications, and tracks pretty well with the shooting analogy. If you kill someone, and investigation/trial doesn't show a good reason, it's murder. Otherwise, it's justified self-defense. Likewise, if you claim asylum/refugee status and investigation/trial shows you don't qualify, it's illegal entry. Otherwise, it's not.

No. It does not say that their method of crossing was legal. Nobody is saying that with their application for asylum that they are not here legally. They gained entry illegally, it is as simple as that.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 08:05 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:06 AM   #707
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
No. It does not say that their method of crossing was legal. Nobody is saying that with their application for asylum that they are not here legally. They gained entry illegally, it is as simple as that.
So, "be regarded as lawfully admitted" doesn't mean what it says, gotcha.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 08:09 AM   #708
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
So, "be regarded as lawfully admitted" doesn't mean what it says, gotcha.

They are being "lawfully admitted" upon their application for asylum. Literally nobody is debating this. They are in the country legally, now.

The issue, for some, is whether they crossed the border illegally; which they clearly did.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.
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 28th September 2022, 08:11 AM   #709
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
They are being "lawfully admitted" upon their application for asylum. Literally nobody is debating this. They are in the country legally, now.

The issue, for some, is whether they crossed the border illegally; which they clearly did.
Ah, got it. So it's "as of the date of such alien's arrival into the United States" that doesn't mean what it says.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 08:14 AM   #710
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Although, to counter myself, it does seem to have become common practice to charge asylum seekers and refugees with illegal entry, in contravention of international protocols we've agreed to. The case is made better than I can here:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...20or%20reentry.

The law seems clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so *shrug*.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 08:21 AM   #711
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
They are being "lawfully admitted" upon their application for asylum.
You'll have to back that up with evidence because Hellbound's cite is pretty damn convincing. Can you cite a legal opinion that contradicts Hellbound's interpretation of 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 28th September 2022, 08:26 AM   #712
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Although, to counter myself, it does seem to have become common practice to charge asylum seekers and refugees with illegal entry, in contravention of
international protocols we've agreed to. The case is made better than I can here:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...20or%20reentry.

The law seems clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so *shrug*.
I looked at that and I couldn't support the idea that everyone gets prosecuted.

For example:

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/665/ Number of prosecutions.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-new...e-border-wall/ number of migrants at Yuma Gap alone.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 28th September 2022 at 08:31 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:29 AM   #713
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Although, to counter myself, it does seem to have become common practice to charge asylum seekers and refugees with illegal entry, in contravention of international protocols we've agreed to. The case is made better than I can here:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...20or%20reentry.

The law seems clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer, so *shrug*.

From your link:

Quote:
Within the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice
has pledged to prosecute asylum-seekers who enter the United States outside
an official port of entry without inspection. This practice has contributed to
mass incarceration and family separation at the U.S.–Mexico border, and it
has prevented bona fide refugees from accessing relief in immigration court.
Yet, federal judges have taken refugee prosecution in stride, assuming that
refugees, like other foreign migrants, are subject to the full force of American
criminal justice if they skirt domestic border controls.

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. No doubt they will find something to cling to, no matter how trivial. I am moving on at this point.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 08:32 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:31 AM   #714
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
"Wealthy white guy". That is a fairly desperate attempt to make this a racial issue. Sorry, I'm not going to entertain that. And, if DeSantis is prosecuted, so be it. I have already stated, "let's see the evidence in court". I don't think a double-standards debate will get too far here. After all, Dems seem to be OK with tens of thousands of illegal crossings at our border each month, and some are arguing that it is "legal" for asylum seekers. When it clearly is not.
Hold up, your clear double standard between what Republican politicians should be applauded for doing and how Venezuelan immigrants should be treated is not a racial issue? In what way is your anti-"illegals" crusade not a racial issue?
wareyin 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 28th September 2022, 08:32 AM   #715
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I looked at that and I couldn't support the idea that everyone gets prosecuted.

For example:

https://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/crim/665/
Well, some do. It seems like it's still a legal grey area that needs clarification, but there are prosecutions happening to some that are seeking refugee or asylum status. So while the law seems clear to me and you, it's apparently being circumvented by prosecuting some before the determination of status is adjusted.

IOW "Oh, you might have gotten off on self-defense, but we can still charge you with discharging a firearm in city limits!"
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 08:36 AM   #716
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
In what way is your anti-"illegals" crusade not a racial issue?

Because "illegals" aren't defined by their race. They are defined by their method of entry into the country. I don't care what race they are, or where they hail from.

There is no such thing as the "illegal" race.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 08:37 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:38 AM   #717
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 28th September 2022, 08:51 AM   #718
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
It's a disagreement of values more so than facts.

But we were not debating values. We were debating facts.

Quote:
Within the past several years, both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have declared that asylum-seekers will receive “zero tolerance” if they enter the United States without inspection.This policy has led to the systematic prosecution of asylum-seekers at courthouses along the U.S.–Mexico border. Prosecutors have charged asylum-seekers with illegal entry and reentry, even in cases where the defendants, as bona fide refugees, were legally entitled to receive safe haven in the United States.

The argument of facts, regarding the illegality of the crossings, stands on my side, clearly. The argument of "values" is a much more subjective matter, isn't it? Pleas for compassion have their place, just not in a debate about facts.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 08:53 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 08:54 AM   #719
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Well, some do.
Well, yeah, no one is claiming that there no illegal ways to enter the US. If you turn yourself in at Yuma Pass and can't produce a convincing story you're the Venezuelan you claim you are then I'd expect you get charged and prosecuted (or what ever the fast track to deportation involves).

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
It seems like it's still a legal grey area that needs clarification, but there are prosecutions happening to some that are seeking refugee or asylum status. So while the law seems clear to me and you, it's apparently being circumvented by prosecuting some before the determination of status is adjusted.
I think we know it's a legal gray area. We have citations in the thread of experts disagreeing (that's basically what your recent link is). It drives me crazy that some people in the thread think this is black and white or can be resolved by citing a single sentence from somewhere.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 28th September 2022 at 09:04 AM.
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 28th September 2022, 09:01 AM   #720
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,020
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Well, yeah, no one is claiming that there no illegal ways to enter the US. If you turn yourself in at Yuma Pass and can't produce a convincing story you're the Venezuelan you claim you are then I'd expect you get charged and prosecuted.


I think we know it's a legal gray area. We have citations in the thread of experts disagreeing (that's basically what your recent link is). It drives me crazy that some people in the thread think this is black and white or can be resolved by citing a single sentence from somewhere.
Yeah, exactly. Definitely an area that requires clarification in law. Some people simply can't see shades of gray, much less colors that aren't on the black/white scale.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound 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 03:48 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.