Calling out Protagonist and all other 180 types. See below regarding US LAW on asylum
Usually I won't waste my time dealing with what I call 180 types. No matter what you say they have something polar opposite to say back and it's usually factually incorrect. The below is copy and pasted regarding anyone entering foot in this country and trying to claim aslym.
8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum
(1)In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Replies to: Calling out Protagonist and all other 180 types. See below regarding US LAW on asylum
There's a lot more to this statute and this is the part that has become irrelevant... DELIBERATELY!
(b)Conditions for granting asylum
(1)In general
(A)Eligibility
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.
(B)Burden of proof
(i)In general
The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
(ii)Sustaining burden
The testimony of the applicant may be sufficient to sustain the applicant’s burden without corroboration, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that the applicant’s testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. In determining whether the applicant has met the applicant’s burden, the trier of fact may weigh the credible testimony along with other evidence of record. Where the trier of fact determines that the applicant should provide evidence that corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must be provided unless the applicant does not have the evidence and cannot reasonably obtain the evidence.
(iii)Credibility determination
Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant’s or witness’s account, the consistency between the applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim, or any other relevant factor. There is no presumption of credibility, however, if no adverse credibility determination is explicitly made, the applicant or witness shall have a rebuttable presumption of credibility on appeal.
And those folks who are denied are subject to removal Curly. You make it think asylum seekers are
batting .1000!
What percentage would you guess are actually refugees, and not just looking for a better life?
(no message)
The point is politicians have you asking the wrong questions. As long as the law is the way it is
nothing will change especially as the countries they come in continue to deteriorate.
Exactly. 0.0001% are asylum seekers. Most just seeking a better life, which is not statutory asylum
So stop bringing up asylum, unless your goal is to embarrass yourself and undermine your party.
You know...you could enforce the law. But the Left only does that when the law inhibits the Right.
You could change the law...which the Left did not do when it had both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
You could stop making promises of health benefits to people in Latin America in return for them agreeing to pay the Cartels thousands of dollars each to risk their lives being brought to our border and left in the desert. But the Left doesn't have the moral fortitude to do that.
As for me, I think we should be allowing in more Latin Americans. But, we should not be giving them government benefits. Those should be earned by being here a generation or two without committing violent crime. Of course, common sense proposals like that are DOA on Capital Hill.
He doesn't understand. Which is why he only noted PART of the statute.
(no message)
Illegals must stop in the first country to ask for asylum.
That would be Mexico.
Wrong, you know you're wrong which is sad.
(no message)
As usual you are clueless.
(no message)
My guess is that very very few ever go through the asylum review process once they are here.
And I would wager very very very few are ever deported.
And THIS is be design.
Why are you even guessing? But to your point are you saying they start the process then hide?
(no message)
I am guessing because I can't trust Google because the seaxh results are all over the place
BUT... it simply defies logic that there are millions of political "refugees" from Latin America.
I mean what country down their has thus kind of repression?
Link: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2019/06/02/report-nearly-90-of-illegals-fail-to-show-up-for-court-hearings-n66195
We would be exporting twenty million+ people if they showed up to their hearings.
(no message)
Yes, once they have entered the country there is nothing to compel them to appear further.
That's the point.
The issue is the bastardization of what "asylum" means. But you know this.
(no message)
Then why won't Congress change the laws? Why is it on the Executive branch?
(no message)
True, that is the law....but people are abusing the system
Many people who are essentially economic migrants are applying for asylum, overwhelming the system.
We are deporting 100K+ every month, but it is still not enough.
True.
I felt like I should note our agreement. It doesn't happen often.
Correct, but that is not the debate. The fact the law is on the books to abuse is the issue.
However people who don't want to talk about the root of the issue but the symptoms just want to say the Executive branch isn't applying laws on the books to prevent asylum claims.
You described yourself in your first paragraph. All I said is there is a process one needs to go
Through to claim asylum and not everyone is doing it. Even if you claim it, it still needs to be evaluated and not necessarily granted. Why are you so upset about that.
Your position yesterday denied that asylum was a legal path for immigrants and provided a link. As
Chris said, the issue is they are abusing a law on the books. Since you're so upset about that vote for someone willing to do something about it.
No, that was not my position. It is definitely legal, but not every immigrant claims asylum.
I would also love a system that allows immigrants to EARN citizenship.