US Asylum law requires that we accept refugees who apply for asylum whether they enter an an official port of entry or not.
Sec. 208. (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 or, where applicable, section 235(b).
The UN Treaty includes rights for the refugees, including the right of non-refoulement.
The 1951 Refugee Convention is the key legal document that forms the basis of our work. Ratified... by 145 State parties, it defines the term "refugee" and outlines the rights of the displaced, as well as the legal obligations of States to protect them.
The core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. This is now considered a rule of customary international law.
Current Democrats did not vote to ratify this treaty, or write the asylum laws which are based on them and even if they did change these laws to ignore the rights of refugees, that law would be in violation of the treaty and unconstitutional, which is why Trump has so easily rebuffed in the courts when he attempted to change asylum rules to limit the ability to apply only to those who had entered the "right" way....
And has also been slapped down with his attempt to block those trying to escape gang and domestic violence from being able to apply for asylum.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Trump administration policies that prevented immigrants who suffered gang violence or domestic abuse in their home countries from seeking asylum.
Emmet Sullivan, a US district court judge, declared that some of the guidance that the then attorney general, Jeff Sessions, issued this year cannot be used to determine whether an immigrant has a credible fear of persecution or torture in their home countries, the first step to making an asylum claim in the US.
[...]
A further rebuke to Trump's efforts came from a US judge in San Francisco who on Wednesday extended his decision blocking the Trump administration from enforcing a ban on asylum for any immigrants who illegally cross the US-Mexico border. Judge Jon Tigar ruled in favor of keeping the ban on hold pending the outcome of a lawsuit challenging it. The case could take months to resolve. He had previously blocked the ban for 30 days.
The ban conflicts with an immigration law that says immigrants can apply for asylum regardless of how they enter the US, Tigar said.
Democrats have nothing to do with this, the LAW and the Constitution have everything to do with it, but of course you then have the Fox Fools try and twist this into a pretzel logic with the argument that it's more compassionate to refuse to accept and block people literally running for their lives from having a safe place to go.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
