Trump gets clever: no asylum if not at a port of entry

Post Reply New Topic

In an effort to shutdown the Central American caravan, President Trump signed an executive order, requiring all asylum seekers to make their claim at a Border Patrol "port of entry".

Anyone entering the US illegally will automatically be denied asylum and presumably arrested.

Here are the CBP ports of entry
https://www.cbp.gov/contact/ports/

"Trump signs order denying asylum to illegal border crossers"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-immigrati ... itics.html

Well, that's at least reasonable, because if someone bypasses the immigration process entirely, then he or she cannot be officially be granted asylum and refugee status.

Did I just say that Trump was being reasonable?

Wait ... whose reality is this, and why can't I wake up from it?

The problem is that if someone is fleeing violence in their home country, they may not have time to research how exactly they're supposed to enter the US. So they shouldn't have their opportunity to seek asylum permanently barred.

For a misdemeanor? They lose even the right to apply for asylum? That's unnecessarily cruel.

The usual Trumpian nonsense. There's nothing "clever" about it at all.

Trump has no authority to limit asylum applications to the so-called "Border Patrol 'port of entry'".

Emphasis added. Note well that the words in parentheses in the text of the relevant statute below are part of the actual statute and not an interpolation:

=====
8 U.S.C. § 1158

(a) Authority to apply for 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...
=====

For more detail on the patent illegality of Trump's attempted action, see:

Trump’s New Asylum Order Violates Laws, Experts Say - President Donald Trump’s Justice Department issued a new asylum rule requiring migrants to declare asylum only at legal ports-of-entry.

President Obama signed an executive order for "DACA", and made up his own immigration laws.

Despite existing laws specifically required deportation, DACA stopped these deportations, which contradicted existing immigration laws.

This showed us that the president has the authority to make immigration law.

If the courts rule that the president doesn't have the authority to make immigration law, then President Trump may win another way, he can try and use that ruling to end DACA (which he has been trying to do).

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 10 Nov 2018, 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

The UN Convention on the Treatment of Refugees set out rules for receiving countries. Articles relevant (to the current rogue behaviour of the USA solely for Trump's political ambition) are explained here.

http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/59ad55c24.pdftion

I hope that the USA will once again become a decent international citizen of the world when this dreadful era is over.

America is the most welcoming country in the world.

#1 in accepting legal immigrants.
#1 in accepting illegal immigrants (estimates 20-30 million of them)

Maybe we can have a program to send them to New Zealand, by boat we send 1 million per year, or would the decrease in your standard of living bother you?

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 10 Nov 2018, 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Please don't think of coming here yourself, you wouldn't fit in and it would challenge your belief system so much you might not recover.

I surmise that you are still unfamiliar with the Convention's articles and the standards it sets out.

New Zealand Population: 4.794 million (2017)

President Trump could send 20 million illegal aliens on US ships to New Zealand or other countries, and tell them to declare "refugee asylum".

Then how will your beliefs change?

In the US, we have name for this .. it's called "NIMBY" .... NOT IN MY BACK YARD
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY

People will support things as long as it doesn't affect them personally and/or they don't have to see it.

No, he couldn't; it would violate the very section that B19 cited. You know, the one you didn't bother to read.

The United States is a signatory to that treaty and in the United States, treaties are equal to the US Constitution:

Article VI

... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...

Are you kidding? There's plenty cartel coyotes and immigration lawyers (from America) down there to teach them how to exploit the immigration loopholes.

Quite a few liberal states have violated thst, also treaties don’t override the constitution as they’d have to be mad an amendment and treaties are not vote on by 3/5 of the states. A treaty saying to ban guns is null and void as it contradicts the constitution.
But it’s all pointless as democrats violate laws and constitution whenever they feel Like it so why should republicans not do the same? Not that I’m saying he is violating anything that’d be up to constitutional lawyers and the Supreme Court to decide not any of us.

Mexic is part of it. Are these “refugees” lives directly threaten in Mexico? If not from my reading thy have to seek asylum in Mexico or rather any nation after theirs that is a signatory of this. So unless every nation they went to threaten to kill them they can’t seek asylum in the us after going through bunch of nations.

And the vast majority not actually seeking asylum. They're coming here for economic reasons (as they have in fact said in interviews) which is not grounds for granting asylum.

What is the exact percentage, and what supporting evidence exists?