Defectors during the cold war were so set up because they served as endorsements and advertisements for Soviet Communism, and, usually, they had actually done some service for the Soviet regime (such as spying for them). Nothing Snowden has done stands as an endorsement of the current Russian system (which is not, now, too much different from ours, anyway), and he has done no particular service to Russia. The secrets he took were not revealed to them, but to the world, and their revelation does not particularly aid the Russian regime. I see no reason why they should feel under any obligation to give him either an apartment or a pension.
Not true anymore. It used to be, but not now. Google “anchor babies” or just search these boards, it has come up quite a few times.
Thanks Eva Luna for the information on current legislation. Most of the people mentioned in those articles had receive asylum in the 60s or 70s, so either rules were different then or someone got cunfused.
We need to clearly distinguish between asylum-seekers (“parolees”), those who have been granted asylum, and refugees.
Those who are allowed in under the Cuban-Haitian Entrance Act ask for and receive an EAD (work permit) pretty quickly, and are eligible for cash assistance, Medicaid, etc. until they find a job. Moreover, the Cubans are pretty much guaranteed asylum and residency. The Haitians, on the other hand, are in a tenuous limbo, and don’t have such great chances of getting asylum granted. Still, the Haitians will have the EAD, and can work legally, or receive cash assistance until they find work. If their case is denied, they’re supposed to leave, and the EAD will expire in less than two years, so if they stay in the country illegally, they also work illegally, of course.
Refugees are totally different. They have everything approved before the State Department even lets them in, so they are not only granted an EAD and cash assistance, etc., as soon as they enter, but can apply for guaranteed residency in two years. (As Eva Luna notes, agencies such as hers will also provide them “reception and placement” services, and certain amendments to the Refugee Act of 1980 extend limited services to parolees and asylees, too.)
For all three categories, the assistance is for a limited time (as Eva Luna says, but it was several years back then–now it’s only for eight months), but if they have children they can continue to get some welfare (at least in California).
Cite? There has been debate, but it would be a pretty big deal to change it. The first article of the fourteenth amendment is not unclear:
Any attempt at wiggling using the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .” would certainly result in a very significant court case.
It would vary by country. Being granted asylium doesn’t necessarily mean you get a work permit too. Besides, it’s not generally assumed that a refugee receiving asylium is going to stay forever in the country.
You misunderstood those threads. As a general rule, any child born in the US whose parents aren’t consular officials or invading troops is entitled to birthright citizenship. That’s what the people talking about “anchor babies” are complaining about - they don’t want the children of illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens.
No, it is still true that anyone born in the US is a citizen. It’s in the Constitution. There are certainly people who’d like to see this changed, but it hasn’t happened yet and would be a very, very big deal if it did.
Oddly, that sounds remarkably like what I wrote in the sentence immediately after the one you quoted.
I disagree with this.
A guy who has such strongly held beliefs and willingness to take radical action as Snowden about one issue will in general tend to have strongly held beliefs and willingness to take strong actions about a lot of other issues.
There are people who want to change that, but I believe the term “anchor babies” is primarily about the ability of these newborn citizens to grant rights to their illegal immigrant relatives - and other extended family. Changing this would require a change in immigration law, and would not involve changing the citizenship status of US-born children of illegal immigrants.
Obama’s aunt (Kenya) is a political refugee. She has been living in Boston for the past 12 years-she received free health insurance, free housing, and EBT card. As far as I can determine, she has never worked a day in the USA.
A Federal judge ruled that she is entitle to live here indefinitely.
I am going to pick a nit here, albeit an important nit. Refugees are people who the U.S. government determines qualify for refugee status while they are outside the U.S. and are admitted as such. They are allowed to apply for permanent residents starting one year after they are admitted to the U.S. as refugees, and are normally granted permanent residence within a few months after that, PROVIDED they have generally behaved themselves. Certain criminal convictions or national security issues may disqualify them from permanent residence and leave them in immigration limbo, or possibly even removal (deportation) proceedings. I’ve seen cases in which people who were lawfully admitted as refugees had their green card applications held up for 10+ years on unspecified national security grounds. Asylees are very similar, except they are determined to qualify as refugees while in the U.S. They can also apply for green cards after 1 year from the grant of asylum, subject to the above restrictions.
Also, “parolee” can apply to people in all sorts of situations, not just asylum-seekers, and many people apply for asylum in the U.S. while in other perfectly lawful immigration statuses, or after their period of lawful admission expires (country conditions or their own personal situation change while they are in the U.S., mostly).
They don’t even need to apply for asylum; they can get green cards under the Cuban Adjustment Act. Is this unfair to everyone else who isn’t Cuban but comes from an authoritarian country? Don’t start me.
Having a citizen child doesn’t grant you any rights, per se. It’s a factor that USCIS hearing officers may consider in determining whether to deport an individual, but it’s not some automatic stay-free card. People are deported with their citizen children all the time. The children aren’t being deported, but obviously they’re not going to leave them behind.
She was just an illegal immigrant until the White House pulled some strings for her, convincing a judge to rule that was a refugee from, er, something or other.
As far as Julian Assange is concerned, from what I’ve read he’s basically a professional mooch, who lives off of his supporters. His current situation as a “guest” in a Venezuelan embassy probably suits him just fine.
Cite?
And Nava, many of the “Dreamers” that you’ve heard of lately were brought to the US by their parents as very small children or infants. Because they weren’t born here, they still quality as “illegal aliens,” regardless of the fact that they don’t speak their native language and have no memory of their native country. They’re likely as American as I am, but I have papers and they don’t. Had they been born here, they’d be US citizens (which brings up the whole anchor babies quandary).
You may be right, but the broader point is that the term “anchor babies” refers to the ostensible ability for the child to do so, whether real or not, and not - as you said - to the mere fact that the child is itself a citizen.
The imagery is that of a ship dropping anchor - the ship is a huge object, but the small anchor keeps it in place. So too here, the claim - valid or not - is that the one small child can anchor a large family in this country.
See Wikipedia on the subject.
Umm, nope - she applied for asylum, and someone leaked a copy of her application, which was granted in part because the fact that it was leaked would subject her to danger if she were returned to Kenya. Cite. And another one. There has never been any solid evidence that the President pulled any strings for her.
Well, yes, that was exactly my point (and what I said)–it was because upthread the terms seemed to be used interchangeably.
A lot of the details are dependent on the particular policies of the country where one requests asylum. So whatever happens to Snowden will to a large degree be determined by Russia’s manner of handlng aslyees.
You were also using the term “parolee” as synonymous with asylum-seeker, which it isn’t. There are several categories of parolees.
States that are parties to the Refugee Convention and/or its Protocol, which is most of them, are supposed to take a generous approach to the employment rights of persons granted asylum. Not all of them necessarily do, of course.
There’s already some harmonisation though, and employment rights is one of the harmonised areas (at least for those who have been recognised as refugees, as opposed to those still categorised as asylum seekers): Article 26 of the 2004 Qualification Directive.
Since the OP was asking about countries of asylum generally, not just the US, I’d just like to point out that not every country has a distinction between “those who have been granted asylum” and “refugees”. The terms are fully interchangeable here in Ireland and, as far as I know, throughout the EU.
There *is *a mechanism for admitting people with their refugee status already determined - the UNHCR resettlement programme - but it doesn’t necessarily affect their designation as a refugee nor their entitlement to employment. Programme refugees in Ireland have the same rights granted to Convention refugees, albeit on a less permanent basis. Anyway, only something like a couple dozen countries throughout the world are part of the UNHCR scheme.