Trump caves—again
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
I said that seeking asylum isn't a crime. You asked about the lawful way to seek asylum, and I gave you the link.
Last edited:
Dumb Washington Post. You can use incognito mode to get past it or just clicky below...
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/publi...e_parents_not_feds_for_border_children_crisis
And I didn't say that seeking asylum was a crime. Is there a way to seek asylum that doesn't involve breaking the law by entering the US illegally?
Then you should know that some who were having their children separated from them were not committing a crime.
I've provided the link to answer this question once already. One more time...
https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-1687.html
your smug underestimation simply confirms my suspicion that this isn’t the failure you think it is.
If the illegal alien is currently in removal proceedings, they aren't eligible to apply for asylum.
I’m not an immigration expert so I do not have the statutory cite and I’m not opening Westlaw for a non-paying “client”
, but my understanding is that presenting yourself to Customs and Border Protection officials through an official port of entry site (like say the Tijuana/whatever is on the US side or the Juarez/El Paso checkpoint) does not involve breaking U.S. law. It is my understanding that entering the country between such checkpoints constitutes illegal entry, but such illegal entry doesn’t invalidate your asylum application.I’m also aware of allegations that CBP officials at such checkpoints have refused to accept such allegations. That would arguably violate international law/accords/agreements. I am also aware of allegations that the same CBP officials have stepped into Mexico and physically kept individuals from presenting themselves at an official checkpoint to apply for asylum. That would definitely violate Mexico’s sovereignty and international law. I have not attempted to determine the truth or falsity of such allegations to my own satisfaction.
Last edited:
Yes they are...at least as I read the statute cited. Illegal entry doesn’t invalidate an asylum application and pending removal proceedings is not a statutory exception to having your asylum application heard.
Questions and Answers:
Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?
Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:
- You are not currently in removal proceedings
- You file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/...d-answers-asylum-eligibility-and-applications
I'm not the law guy, so I'm going off the USCIS website and what I've read about the "zero tolerance policy."
You law people go to school to read and write real weird, so I will always defer to your thoughts on the laws. You've always presented yourself as a credible source, and when you don't know the answer, you state that.
No it doesn’t. It explains how one can seek asylum and is entitled to a hearing on their application. That’s it. You are presuming that because under that statute they are entitled to have their application heard, they per se haven’t entered illegally. That is not the case. Entitlement to having your asylum application heard isn’t contingent upon you entering legally. The statute you cited expressly provides that you can seek asylum by entering between official checkpoints and still get it heard. Entering in between official checkpoints is the very definition of illegal entry.
The statute you cited speaks only entitlement to submitting an asylum application. It doesn’t define illegal entry anywhere. Those are two different issues, and the statute you cited doesn’t address one of them...and his question did. In truth, you can break the law with regards to illegal entry and still be entitled legally to submit your application.
Immigration law is notoriously difficult.
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...val-deportation-asylum-application-i-589.html
https://www.uscis.gov/i-589
Last edited:
No...I would go with what USCIS says in their website. I have already stated I’m far from an expert in the legal niceties of immigration. I stand corrected.
It aalso explains how one can seek asylum WHILE breaking the law.
So it really didn’t answer his question directly.
But are they breaking the law if they cross the border (and surrender) for the purpose of claiming asylum? I've seen this question anwered both ways this week by different immigration laws and each argument makes sense, from what Sec. 208 states. Is there settled law on this? If so, I haven't seen it (although granted, I haven't spent time researching it on Westlaw). That is why I gave that section because that is where I have been directed when I asked about the legality of asylum and it does address that.
If you can clarify any of this, please do.
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughts as always JD. I'm just trying to figure out all of the consequences of "zero tolerance." From what I can tell, Sessions may have taken liberties with language in the statute that 2cents linked that reads:
(C) Additional limitations. - The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).
If "zero tolerance" means that Sessions made being in removal proceedings an "additional limitation or condition," and removal proceedings now "begin" upon apprehension, that is a big hell no for me. I'm not sucked up into this being a Trump creation yet because I have very little faith in Sessions. That "currently in removal proceedings" is coming from somewhere.
I'm a law and order type of guy. Illegal entry is illegal entry. But I don't think anyone should be playing a shell game with the law.
IMO, yes you are breaking the law if you illegally enter the country (between checkpoints rather than at a checkpoint) to submit your asylum claim. You can be prosecuted for illegal entry. You still get your asylum claim heard though. The two are separate determinations/events, the findings of one not dependent upon the other.
It would take a citation to the statute defining illegal entry to determine if submitting an asylum app upon illegal entry is an defense or exception to prosecution for the crime of illegal entry. Though I don’t profess to be an expert in this area of law, my understanding is that it is not. I’m up too late drinking whiskey and watching “The Runaways” on Hulu to care enough to go actually grab the statute though.
Is that series any good? I'm looking for a new series since I finally got around to watching and finishing Dexter.
haha I understand that. I haven't taken time to research this on Westlaw, just speaking with friends who practice in this area.
I had someone tell me what you state in the first paragraph and they cited 8 U.S.C. 1325(a) which leads me to agree with you. However, I had another person tell me it isn't illegal if one surrenders. He cited a couple of cases but I can't remember the cases he gave unfortunately.
It’s decent, but I’m a huge comic book nerd.
I still read a ton of them, loved the comics that it is based upon, and I am not overly critical when it comes to the movies and tv shows.
My Galaxy S3 finally bricked after six years (I’m cheap and never upgrade). When I bought a new phone, Sprint gave me free Hulu for as long as I keep my service contract with them. So now I’m binging it before Luke Cage season 2 on Netflix.
As a Christian, that Pat Robertson video disgusts me.
All the fake outrage
It was not new by any means what so ever
He messed up by ramping it up
Gotta love how Progtards and Pussyhats get “woke” when it’s not their guy.
It’s a political “gotcha” and it works much better when almost the entire MSM is a propaganda machine for the Democratic Party
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/article213535029.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article213525764.html
Fact is our immigration policy needs fvckin fixed in the worst kind of way
But the Democrats won’t be happy until the border is wide open or we do a catch and release into the US 100% of the time.
Progtards and Pussyhats want to flood the nation and import voters
Everything about this post is correct. And this kind of hyperbolic propaganda is not moving the needle.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...rs-to-nazi-guards-if-you-vote-for-trump-youre
