It isn’t odd to say that people inside the US get access to courts, and people outside are not guaranteed such a right.
It’s pretty simple.
…we aren’t talking about Canada. We are talking about the United States.
We aren’t talking about what happens at US embassies. We are talking about what happens on US soil.
Have I made that argument?
And Trump is demanding the removal of that exception, is he not?
It seems to me that its changing rather rapidly. Are you not watching the news?
It’s kind of an edge case if they’re only “inside” because they snuck across the border illegally.
He wasn’t!
The TV series is Firefly. Serenity is the name of the movie. Bricker was quoting from the “Shindig” episode of the TV series.
[/hijack]
So are you conceding that persons who present themselves at ports of entry to request asylum are here legally, and are thus entitled to due process?
If we all agree on the rights of those who do the above, and we’re only debating the sort of edge case you describe, that at least would clarify things a great deal. But in all of these threads, there seems to be a constant refrain of “they’re here illegally!” when many of them unquestionably aren’t.
Seems to me that’s a determination that needs to be left to a judge. Not even like a real Article III judge, but a judge-lite who works for the Department of Justice.
Anybody else wondering what is scaring these people so badly that they will risk their families lives to get here? Seems to me that is a very important question, but maybe that’s just me.
So when you said some stuff about previous Presidents, it wasn’t actually true, but this time it is?
This is a very valid point.
There’s a clear path to legal entry for a person seeking asylum: to present themselves at a regular point of entry and request asylum. A person who does this and is subsequently admitted to the country is not here illegally.
Except CBP is preventing refugees from being able to make asylum claims at ports of entry, creating a literal “Catch-22” scenario where people seeking asylum have to enter the country in order to make a claim but are prevented in doing so on the basis that they lack asylum approval. And people entering outside of designated ports of entry are frequently being deported before being given the opportunity to claim asylum.
The United States has long asserted its authority over the Americas as part of its exclusive sphere of international political influence going back to the Monroe Doctrine. This was the basis for opposing Soviet support and aid for regimes in Latin and South America, and its right to interfere with the internal politics of countries which were seen as not being favorable to American interests. It can be debated how much of the current humanitarian crises in Haiti, Guatemala, Venezuela, El Salvador, et cetera are a result of American policies (although it is clear much of the violence in Mexico, Columbia, and Nicaragua stems from the American War on Drugs and support for right wing terrorist organizations) but at a minimum the United States should be offering at least basic humanitarian relief and temporary resettlement for children and families fleeing violence and unrest. That such technical gyrations and outright lies are being advanced to try to invalidate that moral obligation speaks volumes to how little Trump and his syncophants care for the traditions of American liberal democracy.
Sarah Sanders being asked to leave a restaurant by an owner whose staff didn’t want to serve her doesn’t even rate a “Meh,” in comparison.
Stranger
After five pages of argument, have we got a consensus on why there is no debate?
Except that those who are presenting themselves at points of entry are being turned away.
Not just at the southern border, either. Some are being turned away at the Canadian border, even if they’re not seeking asylum but just visiting, and even if they’re Canadian citizens. The problem seems to occur when they have brown skin and Muslim-sounding names.
I would debate, but considering the leanings of this message board, there’s no point. Minds have been made up. The decision is final. No appeal.
If that’s happening, it’s illegal, and should be documented so that the offending Border Patrol people can be charged, and the practice stopped.
My entire focus (shockingly!) here is that immigrants must follow the law. But that holds with even more force applied to the Border Patrol. If they don’t like the results of the asylum law, then write their Congressmen and change the law. But until then, they must follow it.
For Debate: Would you be likely to eat at a restaurant called The Red Hen?
Not me, but then I’m one of those “coastal elites”.
This story says nothing about immigration or asylum. And your link doesn’t contain any description of a violation of the law by immigration officials.
The link you offer contains a story about a woman who was first stopped during Obama’s presidency:
She’s not seeking asylum. She has no particular right to enter. She was told to obtain a visa:
This is not unheard-of.
A couple of years ago, my mother-in-law stayed with us for six months – almost the maximum time allowed on a B1/B2 visa. Her flight was scheduled to leave at T minus three days.
But that year we had a horrible blizzard, and the airports were shut down. She couldn’t leave on time; when we were finally able to get her a new flight, she was there days over her stay.
We talked to the immigration folks at the airport, armed with newspaper stories about the blizzard and web page printouts showing cancelled flights. The guy said something like, “I’m almost certain that won’t be a problem when she tries to re-enter, but I can’t guarantee what the officer will do at her arrival.”
Obviously we weren’t happy at the prospect of having her fly back here next time and get turned away. He opined, “To be sure, just get her a new ten-year visa.”
That was a tad expensive, especially since we had four years left on her current one, but it was the correct vehicle to present the newspaper stories, the web pages, and explain the small overstay. She got the new visa, and has been back several times since.
Now, it’s true she’s from the Dominican Republic, which means she always needs a visa, and Canadian citizens do not necessarily need a visa, but sometimes they do.
Do they offer chicken fried steak, biscuits with red eye gravy, and pecan pie? On Earth, as it is in Heaven?
If we do not like the law we need to change the law the proper way. we all know anyone in there right mind would be against separating families, assuming there is no abuse or other issues like that, however, I would not go to a foreign county and break there laws and expect to not be punished. It is important to expect the rule of law of the land, you may not like it, but you must respect it, and you can fight to change it and vote in the person you deem that will do just that.
Does Sanders lie, yes. Should she lie as press secretary, no. I actually don’t think she wants to lie, I do not think Spicer wanted to lie, and I especially don’t think his first day on the job he wanted to tell the press that The presidents crowd size was the largest ever (even if that was the truth I don’t think he would have wanted to brag about that). I think this people are trapped, if they do not do the will of the president, then they will be fired. Its to easy to say that these people are insidious and just plain evil, people are much more complicated then that and because they lie doesn’t mean that everything they say is a lie or everything they do is inherently bad.
I listen to Bill Maher say that he hopes the president fails and we end up in a recession. Thats crazy kinda of talk, he is using his anger to drive a crazy agenda. whatever ones political party, it is imperative that our country on a whole to do well financially, if our country suffers, then every other country suffers, and every other country has less to start with. Therefore, you are hoping that the poor and those close to being poor become stricken with financial burdens that they can never recover from in there life times. We all need to be better and see things for what they truly are, and not look for the first person or party to blame for things not going the way we want them too. As a whole we all must be wiser then that, and look to what is the best outcome for everyone.
The best outcome for everyone is that Trump not get reelected. Some would say it’s imperative. Thus, if we have a recession and Trump is the victim (as well as the cause) of that downturn, that’s a good thing in the big picture. Yes, a recession sucks, but Trump is catastrophic.