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 28th September 2022, 09:07 AM   #721
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
Nice try. . .not.

When we recall your screeds expressing your fear of people's of other races, religions and cultures seeming to overwhelm American society it isn't hard to see where you are coming from with your rants about dirty, decease carrying latino immigrants.
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 28th September 2022, 09:10 AM   #722
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
But we were not debating values. We were debating facts.

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.
You can spare us the haughty lectures about how you think you won the last debate.

I can't speak of the others here, but I don't need a lecture from you.
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 28th September 2022, 09:19 AM   #723
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.
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, 09:21 AM   #724
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 wareyin View Post
1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.
If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!

__________________
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, 09:27 AM   #725
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.

We generally define "illegals" as those who have crossed the border via unauthorized means. There are things that can take place afterwards, such as seeking asylum, that might make their residence here legal. Those are the facts, I'm afraid.

Now sure, we can make lots of emotional arguments about why they aren't "lesser humans", but no matter how awesome they may be as individuals, that would not affect their status.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 09:29 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, 09:27 AM   #726
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!


Yeah, that is exactly the same as crossing a river to gain illegal entry.
__________________
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, 09:34 AM   #727
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
We generally define "illegals" as those who have crossed the border via unauthorized means.
No, "we" don't. This isn't Stormfront.

If we're now defining a person as illegal solely on the basis of possibly having committed a misdemeanor then we're all illegal.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
There are things that can take place afterwards, such as seeking asylum, that might make their residence here legal. Those are the facts, I'm afraid.

Now sure, we can make lots of emotional arguments about why they aren't "lesser humans", but no matter how awesome they may be as individuals, that would not affect their status.
You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".
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, 09:45 AM   #728
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".

I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
Originally Posted by Warp12
First off, I am not claiming they are here illegally now, by the letter of the law. They are now asylum seekers.

So what of it? I don't think they should be crossing illegally, and the government seems to agree, as they seem to prosecute plenty of asylum seekers on that charge. I don't think they should be granted a special exception to that allows them to cross illegally, but avoid deportation. Sue me.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 09:53 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, 09:57 AM   #729
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.






So what of it? I don't think they should be crossing illegally, and the government seems to agree, as they seem to prosecute plenty of asylum seekers on that charge. I don't think they should be granted a special exception to that allows them to cross illegally, but avoid deportation. Sue me.
On the contrary, I summed up your claims perfectly: you don't care about their legal status one whit, but want to call them "illegals" anyway. And given your eyerolls about Canadians (or Americans) who also cross a border possibly illegally being "illegals", you're demonstrating further that to you it is all about the race of the border crosser rather than the crossing of the border, the legality of the crossing, or the method of entry.
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, 10:04 AM   #730
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by wareyin
And given your eyerolls about Canadians (or Americans) who also cross a border possibly illegally being "illegals", you're demonstrating further that to you it is all about the race of the border crosser rather than the crossing of the border, the legality of the crossing, or the method of entry.

That is what you came up with, from the following exchange?

Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
If you cross the wrong street in Stanstead, Quebec and Derby Line, Vermont you should be charged with illegal entry and deported!

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yeah, that is exactly the same as crossing a river to gain illegal entry.

Humorous, to say the least. Obviously your argument is so idiotic as to not invite further debate on the "race" issue.
__________________
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, 10:08 AM   #731
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 7,996
For fun, Google "DeSantis legal problems" and enjoy.

He seems to think that breaking laws establishes his credentials out there on the right wing. Now whatever could've given him that idea?
__________________
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 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 28th September 2022, 10:15 AM   #732
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 10,645
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
That is what you came up with, from the following exchange?






Humorous, to say the least. Obviously your argument is so idiotic as to not invite further debate on the "race" issue.
Man, this conservative tactic of 'you got "x" from me saying "x"??!?!' sure is a doozy, isn't it?

But no need to keep hammering home how inseparable your idea of "illegals" is from race. You made that point from the get go.
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, 11:09 AM   #733
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
You've already stated that DeSantis' victims status was as legal asylum seekers, but you still want to refer to them as "illegals".
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I guess you haven't been following the discussion very closely.
Oh, please. We all see that you have rejiggered the law and the facts to make it seem the asylum seekers are in some sort of illegal status that would warrant them being sent home in one of your box cars from hell.

If you are going to make up a separate reality for yourself you ought to be able to do better than this.
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 28th September 2022, 11:46 AM   #734
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
1) no, people aren't defined by a possible misdemeanor they might have committed in a legally grey area.
2) the focus on the brown people coming from south of the border rather than the lily white people from Canada or the vast majority of people here illegally who overstayed a visa demonstrates that yes, for you it is strictly about race.
Indeed


Beebe Plain: Canada/USA Border town.............................. ..........................................Nogales: Mexico/USA Border town
__________________
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 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, 12:13 PM   #735
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Yeah, I've heard the jails fill up for Illegal Entry cases when kids organize street soccer in Beebe Plain. Some kids reach felony re-entry levels by first quarter.

Traffic stop in Beebe: Sir you crossed the yellow line, I need your drivers license, registration, proof of insurance, and valid claim of asylum.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 28th September 2022 at 12:18 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 28th September 2022, 12:16 PM   #736
RolandRat
Graduate Poster
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Essex UK
Posts: 1,553
You do get that just because laws may get ignored under certain circumstances doesn't mean those laws go away.
RolandRat 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 28th September 2022, 12:25 PM   #737
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
You do get that just because laws may get ignored under certain circumstances doesn't mean those laws go away.
Please clarify. What law is being "ignored" and what are you responding to?
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, 12:46 PM   #738
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by smartcooky 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
I didn't say you were there to seek asylum. You said it was US territory. It is not. I included the asylum info to demonstrate why a person cannot apply for asylum at an embassy or consulate which it clearly states: because it's not US soil and asylum can only be requested on US soil or at a port of entry.

Your source is "Diffen" a website that makes comparisons and it is wrong. My source was NOLO, a legal source website. Here is the same information from the US government:

This source is the US Embassy and Consulates
Quote:
3) Are the U.S. Embassy and the Consulates General considered American soil?
To dispel a common myth – no, they are not! U.S. foreign service posts are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
There seems to be some confusion of between "territory" and the immunity that embassies/consulates have. No one, not even the host country, may enter either without their express permission which is why someone can seek protection there such as Julian Assange did in the Ecuadora embassy. But the Ecaudor embassy is not Nicaraguan territory.

If a non-citizen woman gives birth in an embassy or consulate, that baby is not automatically a US citizen because it was not born on US territory.

Quote:
Quote:
Is the embassy territory sovereign territory?
Hopefully by now you have an idea of the answer, which is no.


In story 1, my friend did not jump for joy on Argentine soil, in story 2, the baby does not become a US citizen, and in story 3, US sovereign territory was not attacked, but the US mission was.

Does the embassy enjoy immunity though? Absolutely!

It is this immunity that most likely confuses folks when it comes to sovereignty. The mission is protected and is considered US property, but the territory does not belong to the US (or any other country with an embassy). Again, the Vienna Convention does not state that the property belongs to the embassy’s country.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 28th September 2022 at 12:48 PM.
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, 01:09 PM   #739
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
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.
No, they cannot accept asylum applicants. You are confusing two separate things.

From Politifact:
Quote:
No, immigrants cannot apply for asylum at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad

Individuals can make asylum claims at U.S. ports of entry, but can they also make those claims at "any embassy or consulate abroad"?

No. Asylum claims must be made within the United States.

"A U.S. consulate or embassy is clearly outside the U.S., so you can’t apply for asylum at a U.S. consulate or embassy," said Stephen H. Legomsky, an emeritus professor at the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis who served as chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services from 2011 to 2013.

Going to a U.S. embassy or consulate does not count as being physically present in the United States for purposes of the asylum statute, said Deborah Anker, a clinical professor of law, founder and director of the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program at Harvard Law School.
As for Julian Assange, the London police could not enter the embassy due to its immunity from being searched, not because it is Ecuadorian territory.

Quote:
Assange sought extraterritorial asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London in June 2012 when an arrest warrant was issued against him in Sweden for accusations of sexual assault.
Quote:
Extraterritorial asylum – which is asylum granted outside the territory of the state itself – is indeed a contested practice in international law and the UK had been quite accommodating in recognising what is, in essence, a subpractice of Latin American states within international law.
https://www.business-standard.com/ar...1200449_1.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 28th September 2022, 01:15 PM   #740
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
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.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
Killing someone in self-defense is not a crime in the first place as declared by an actual law.
Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally then apply for asylum, is not protected by law.
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, 01:28 PM   #741
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
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.
Notice the word "adjustment"...that means a change in status. From the same statute:
Quote:
(b) Requirements for adjustment
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, in the Secretary's or the Attorney General's discretion and under such regulations as the Secretary or the Attorney General may prescribe, may adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence the status of any alien granted asylum who-

(1) applies for such adjustment,

(2) has been physically present in the United States for at least one year after being granted asylum,

(3) continues to be a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title or a spouse or child of such a refugee,

(4) is not firmly resettled in any foreign country, and

(5) is admissible (except as otherwise provided under subsection (c)) as an immigrant under this chapter at the time of examination for adjustment of such alien.
ETA:
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
So, "be regarded as lawfully admitted" doesn't mean what it says, gotcha.
It means that they are then considered as lawfully admitted from that point. That's why their status was 'adjusted'...from illegal to legal.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 28th September 2022 at 01:30 PM.
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, 01:44 PM   #742
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,391
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
And, if DeSantis is prosecuted, so be it. I have already stated, "let's see the evidence in court".
Why is it "let's see the evidence in court, and whatever the outcome so be it" for a politician, but you're perfectly ready to condemn the asylum seeker's presumed crimes?
__________________

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 28th September 2022, 01:49 PM   #743
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,664
Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally apply for asylum, is not protected by law? But if the asylum seeker presents themself at a Port of Entry to request asylum, is that legal? How else can they do it?

But I think this is where we are getting out of our depth. As RY wrote, we really need a legal opinion. Still, it seems to me that if someone seeking asylum presents themselves at a Port of Entry to request asylum, in a legal sense they have not yet entered the U.S. They're asking to be allowed in so that they can present an asylum request.

As the director of the International Rescue Committee put it, there's no other way they can do it. "You just show up."
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 28th September 2022, 02:00 PM   #744
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Indeed

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dhdnkavojc...lain.jpg?raw=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/lj84fmp11g...ales.jpg?raw=1
Beebe Plain: Canada/USA Border town.............................. ..........................................Nogales: Mexico/USA Border town

I bet like 50-100,000 undocumented citizens are crossing that street marker for illegal entry with intent of foreign residence, monthly. Good comparison.

Quote:
Heightened security measures have bolstered the area where the international boundary cuts through two villages and several houses. Barriers have gone up in recent years, officer patrols have increased and security cameras and technology use has risen.

For residents, security changes on the northern border have reached the tipping point.

The only way to access their homes by vehicle is passing through a U.S. Customs and Border Protection port of entry. Previously, they had been able to wave at officers on their way back into town. Then that changed to a policy whereby residents were asked to stop and report under the canopy of the customs building.
https://vtdigger.org/2018/08/27/live...-restrictions/


Could these arguments/comparisons get any more stupid? I think so, based on what I have seen so far. But this is how far some will go in their attempts to make this an issue of race.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 02:05 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 28th September 2022, 02:01 PM   #745
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 13,018
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
No, they cannot accept asylum applicants. You are confusing two separate things.

From Politifact:
Yes they can. They have in the past. Some countries do now.
Just that it is not universally nor uniformly applied or agreed, now and in the past. It seems to be a matter mostly of how the countries involved want to play it legally. Have a long read.

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/protecti...y-general.html


Quote:
As for Julian Assange, the London police could not enter the embassy due to its immunity from being searched, not because it is Ecuadorian territory.

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...1200449_1.html
A distinction without an effective difference, really. Assange was accepted as an asylum seeker by Ecuador because he walked in the door and applied for it. Had they rejected him, he would have been escorted back out the door. Their problem was they could not get him off their property in the UK without traversing UK territory, where Assange would have been arrested. And later, he was.

The issue about refusal of refugees raises the sticky, thorny issue of "refoulment" - pushing asylum seekers back into a territory where they may be at unjustified risk of arrest and/or harm. Given that most asylum seekers are doing so in order to escape or avoid exactly that risk of arrest and/or harm, it is considered an international obligation to accept asylum seekers initially. Until such time as their situation is assessed for the risk or refoulment. Not all countries meet this obligation. Australia has been through this situation in recent years, with certain sections of our recently changed (and unlamented) conservative government being keen on "pushing back the boat people to where they came".
__________________
...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

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 28th September 2022 at 02:11 PM.
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, 02:17 PM   #746
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,664
This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.
  • Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
  • Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?
If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-
  • Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.

    If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-

  • Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.
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 28th September 2022, 02:18 PM   #747
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Crossing the border without inspection, even to legally apply for asylum, is not protected by law?
Correct. But once they apply for asylum, their status is 'adjusted' to legal. If their application is eventually denied, they are then deported because their status reverts to being here illegally.


Quote:
But if the asylum seeker presents themself at a Port of Entry to request asylum, is that legal? How else can they do it?
Yes, it is legal because they followed the legal step of presenting themselves for inspection at a P of E. The other way it to do it the way many of them are doing it: by crossing illegally via the Rio Grande or the Yuma Gap, for example, and then turning themselves in to Border Patrol.



Quote:
But I think this is where we are getting out of our depth. As RY wrote, we really need a legal opinion.
The law is quite clear about this and has been cited several times. Frankly, some people are making this much more complicated than it really is.


Quote:
Still, it seems to me that if someone seeking asylum presents themselves at a Port of Entry to request asylum, in a legal sense they have not yet entered the U.S. They're asking to be allowed in so that they can present an asylum request.
The law states clearly that to apply for asylum, one must apply while on US soil OR at a port of entry. Those are the two stipulations.

Quote:
As the director of the International Rescue Committee put it, there's no other way they can do it. "You just show up."
You've taken that quote out of context. In context:

Quote:
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. “You just have to show up."
He's saying that an asylum seeker can just show up at a port of entry to ask for entrance to apply for asylum. You don't have to have a visa or other authorization...you just show up. It's decided there if you will be admitted legally.
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, 02:21 PM   #748
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.
  • Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
  • Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?
If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-
  • Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.

    If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-

  • Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.

Huh? What kind of revisionist history is this?

It all started with the assertion that those who cross illegally (not at ports of entry) have entered illegally. And my opinion is that they should not be free from deportation, as they are with the special exception.

It's nothing at all about people seeking asylum at an official port of entry. Where do people come up with this stuff? I mean we have been arguing about illegal crossings for page after page over the past couple of days.

Jesus.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 02:27 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 28th September 2022, 02:58 PM   #749
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Yes they can. They have in the past. Some countries do now.
If you read carefully, I have been discussing the law for applying for asylum at United States embassies consulates. I have not been discussing OTHER countries' laws or practices regarding asylum. So, NO: US embassies /consulates cannot accept applications for asylum. If they could, such evidence could and would be provided. It has not been. On the other hand, quotes and citations that they cannot has been abundantly provided.

Quote:
Just that it is not universally nor uniformly applied or agreed, now and in the past. It seems to be a matter mostly of how the countries involved want to play it legally. Have a long read.

https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/protecti...y-general.html
This link is from the UN Refugee Council. Additionally, it discusses GRANTING temporary asylum inside an embassy, on a warship, etc. which is not the same as someone filing an application for asylum. Granting temporary asylum at an embassy, on a warship, etc. does not mean they have been granted entrance into the US as an asylum seeker.


Quote:
A distinction without an effective difference, really.
No. "Immunity from search" and "being territory/soil" are most certainly NOT "A distinction without an effective difference". Your claim is just an attempt to distract from the fact that you cannot provide any evidence to support your stand.

Quote:
Assange was accepted as an asylum seeker by Ecuador because he walked in the door and applied for it. Had they rejected him, he would have been escorted back out the door. Their problem was they could not get him off their property in the UK without traversing UK territory, where Assange would have been arrested. And later, he was.
That, again, is Ecuador, not the US which has been the country we are discussing. What Ecuador does has no bearing on what US law is: US embassies/consulates cannot accept applications for asylum because the are not US territory. This has been explicitly stated in the several citations I've provided. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's on you.

Quote:
The issue about refusal of refugees raises the sticky, thorny issue of "refoulment" - pushing asylum seekers back into a territory where they may be at unjustified risk of arrest and/or harm. Given that most asylum seekers are doing so in order to escape or avoid exactly that risk of arrest and/or harm, it is considered an international obligation to accept asylum seekers initially. Until such time as their situation is assessed for the risk or refoulment. Not all countries meet this obligation. Australia has been through this situation in recent years, with certain sections of our recently changed (and unlamented) conservative government being keen on "pushing back the boat people to where they came".
I have never said otherwise/disagreed with the above so why you're bringing this up to me is irrelevant. Are you under the impression that my stating facts about US immigration law is somehow being anti-refugee or anti-immigration? If so, then you are mistaken.
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, 03:00 PM   #750
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,664
I quoted an NPR report that, "That's significant because these migrants generally cannot be expelled under the pandemic border restrictions known as Title 42. And immigration authorities are mostly releasing them into the United States, where they can seek asylum. I got this reply.
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Yeah, it puts a disease-laden, poorly-vetted face on these migrants. Talk about horrible policy. They are illegals and should be deported. Nauseating.

If you later refined that position forgive me if I didn't see it. I'll admit, I mostly skip over your posts in this thread. All 119 of them.
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 28th September 2022, 03:06 PM   #751
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
If you later refined that position forgive me if I didn't see it. I'll admit, I mostly skip over your posts in this thread. All 119 of them.

Not only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 04:14 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 28th September 2022, 03:07 PM   #752
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 27,904
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
This is the process an asylum seeker without documents (visa, passport) goes through upon arrival at a Port of Entry to request asylum. It is based on information presented by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.–based think tank that promotes bipartisanship.
  • Individual appears at a Port of Entry (PoE)
  • Does the individual, when interviewed by CBP [Customs Border Patrol], express a fear of return to their home country?
If the answer is yes, they do express a fear-
  • Asylum seeker is placed in detention until they receive a credible fear interview to determine if they have an arguable case for asylum.

    If the interviewer determines they do have a credible fear-

  • Asylum seeker is either kept in detention or paroled until their day in front of an immigration judge, who makes the determination of their asylum status.

Bipartisan Policy Center link

Remember this all started with the assertion that asylum seekers are criminals -- guilty of illegal entry -- and none of them should be admitted.
Nope. No one, not even Warp, has claimed that an asylum seeker who goes through port of entry and is admitted is a criminal or guilty of illegal entry. You need to read more carefully.
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, 03:26 PM   #753
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 12,664
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Not.only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says)...
Read more carefully? I seem to be doing okay.
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 28th September 2022, 03:29 PM   #754
Warp12
King of Kings
 
Warp12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 7,287
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Read more carefully? I seem to be doing okay.

No, you are not. Because at no point am I asserting that the law deems these migrants illegal after they have sought asylum. Nor am I claiming that those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry are illegals.

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
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.

I think you are going way beyond willful ignorance in your assertions.
__________________
Break on through to the other side.

Last edited by Warp12; 28th September 2022 at 03:31 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 28th September 2022, 04:12 PM   #755
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Gundungurra
Posts: 13,018
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I have never said otherwise/disagreed with the above [refoulment] so why you're bringing this up to me is irrelevant. Are you under the impression that my stating facts about US immigration law is somehow being anti-refugee or anti-immigration? If so, then you are mistaken.
No, I'm not saying US immigration law is anti-refugee or anti-immigration. Not at all. I'm also agreeing with you that application for asylum necessarily involves illegal entry. So just settle, petal.

I raised other countries and the UN discussion simply to show that the USA does not operate in isolation of other countries with its treatment of asylum seekers. Nor has it been consistent or even logical, from time to time.

For example, the treatment of asylum seekers who arrive by plane seems to be somewhat different than those at the southern border. Should I as an Australian arrive on a flight at LAX and apply for asylum at the passport control, I would probably not be granted it despite being white, English-speaking, non-criminal, non-poor, and well educated and employable. It would be refused because there is no possibility of refoulment should the application be refused. Also, good joke, koala bear, kangaroo, move along, have a nice day.

And yet someone just like me is "an illegal" and gets deported...
Quote:
Australian traveller strip-searched, held in US prison and deported over little-known entry requirement
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ry-requirement

So it seems there is more dependence on who is doing the processing and how narky they feel like being. Given the brown, poor Venezuelans are being considered by some as "illegals" by simply crossing the wrong border, that gives lie to the capricious nature of US border policing and who is involved.
__________________
...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, 04:12 PM   #756
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Not.only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.
Okay so you were wrong.

So what is your point? You think they are "illegal" but the law says they get a new status once they apply for asylum.

You are against that?

So. . .?

Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Now, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.
Oh, for crying out loud, Johny One Note, we knew what you were driving at in your first couple of posts. . .days and pages ago.

So what's your real point here?

Last edited by arayder; 28th September 2022 at 04:41 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 28th September 2022, 04:18 PM   #757
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
I think you are going way beyond willful ignorance in your assertions.
In what alternate universe does recognizing the folly of your notions of what the law is constitute willful ignorance?
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 28th September 2022, 04:23 PM   #758
arayder
Illuminator
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,254
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
No, you are not. Because at no point am I asserting that the law deems these migrants illegal after they have sought asylum. Nor am I claiming that those who seek asylum at legal ports of entry are illegals.
So what's your point?

Last edited by arayder; 28th September 2022 at 04:35 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 28th September 2022, 05:07 PM   #759
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
Why is it "let's see the evidence in court, and whatever the outcome so be it" for a politician, but you're perfectly ready to condemn the asylum seeker's presumed crimes?
Mudpeople.
__________________
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 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, 05:17 PM   #760
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 22,676
Originally Posted by Warp12 View Post
Not only have I have clarified my position numerous times (to me, they are still illegals, despite what the law says), but I also made it clear that I was Initially unaware that they had entered illegally. I didn't know such an exception existed, and I am 100% against it.




Now, if you are going to research the.number of posts I have in the thread, but not read them, then you really shouldn't even be commenting on such. You clearly are ill-informed about what the current debate is over.

__________________
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 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 03:31 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.