Haven’t heard any plan about a moat, or even talk of it. I’m simply for securing the border. And given that very large numbers of people have a very strong desire to come here, not recognizing our border or our sovereignty, I’m for whatever will work. If a wall is an effective part of the solution, I’m for it. If a moat is proposed, I’d like to hear more about it.
So if you’re willing to acknowledge that some of the people in the caravan have legitimate asylum claims, doesn’t it follow that those claims should get a proper hearing? Preferably before a judge, with counsel available to advise them.
But I don’t mind adducting those here that we can. Sadly, we are not set up to automatically deal with swarms of people and sort them out. What if sorting them out requires some kids to be separated from parents. Well, we can’t have that, so our lawsuit the window.
Question for you. From history, it appears that about 20% of asylum claims are legitimate and the people granted asylum. There is also a huge portion that have no legitimate argument for asylum. Why would we want to take a limited resource like asylum lawyers and have them waste their time on some percent of the people who we know are simply gaming the system? I don’t have an answer for all this, but I’m struck with the gravity of some of the questions I come top with.
We require asylum candidates to be physically in the country to apply for asylum. In general, while we may not mind denying people a right to due process in remote lands it is pretty horrible to not allow humans access to due process on our soil.
The question is why are you willing to sacrifice our core moral values and toss out core rights like due process and equal protection.
Lets be clear, the caravan has to make it to a port of entry to apply, and Trump is talking about shutting down the border to block possible legal immigration.
So if a moat costs the same as a wall, you’d be good with a moat?
How about laying down tons of bubble wrap so that when those sneaky Mexicans invade us, we can hear them coming? In the name of border security, of course. If that cost less than a wall, you good with that?
There are two categories from which people can apply for asylum: one is either an asylees or a refugee. As you point out, asylees must apply at the border; refugees can apply at any US embassy. By definition, asylees are those seeking asylum who are already in the U.S. Refugees seeking asylum are those not in the U.S. The latter group applies at embassies. So there is nothing preventing someone seeking asylum in the U.S.—who is not already here—from applying at a U.S. embassy in their home country or a neighboring one.
The Trump administration intentionally removed the TPS option and the refugee option requires sponsorship and there is no such office in Honduras to apply to.
But you hand waved away my cite, directly showing that to apply for asylum you must be in this country and replaced it with no cite showing that there is another option.
To quote your “refugee” cite, which doesn’t disprove that following the “asylum” path is legal BTW.
Which links to:
AND
Trump dropped this to a historically low 30,000 people for Fiscal Year 2019 world wide.
They simply cannot apply like you claim, the Asylee lane is the only one open to them and they HAVE TO APPLY AT A POINT OF ENTRY OR AT THE BORDER.
Provide a real cite to that, if it is not true as I used Asylum and not Refugee on purpose.
Looking at the first page isn’t enough on google on this subject. The “refugee” lane is just not open to these individuals, so they are following the other legal path they have.
The one legal and reasonable path they have for US entry involves getting to the US first.
We do have a program that would have allowed them to do it remotely, but Trump doesn’t like brown people from “shithole countries” so that was restricted by him.
