From my brief perusal of the NY Times, I understand that people on American soil, citizens or not, are entitled to due process. But what about if they are standing at the border? Does the border patrol (or whoever is letting people in and out) have the legal authority to not allow those with proper documentation to enter the country? Truly I need my ignorance fought!
This article will answer at least some of your questions:
IANAL, but…
Two issues
1- people who present at the border crossing point and want to enter can be turned back. People who have snuck into the US and are on US soil rather than waiting at a crossing are “in the USA” and to remove them, due process should apply.
2- people who present at the US border and claim asylum, the US must process to determine whether their asylum claim is legit rather than simply turning them away, due to assorted human rights treaties and UN agreements.
This is the same problem Canada faces. The difference is, Canada (and presumably the USA) have a “safe country” clause in their refugee handling rules. If a person presents at a border (or arrives on transportation) and claims asylum, but has arrived from a country deemed “safe”, can be turned back to the country they arrived from. Asylum seekers are looking to escape their dangerous home country. Having arrived in a safe country, they do not then have the right to pick and choose further countries. Canada considers the USA a “safe country” (so far). this means they trust the USA will fairly adjudicate asylum requests, and not send people in real danger back to their home country.
However, some refugees for some reason, especially lately, do not trust the USA to fairly hear their cases, or their time is running out, or they really are economic migrants. As a result, they sneak into Canada. Like the USA, once they are on Canadian soil we can’t just toss them out or send them back to the USA (so far) without fairly hearing their asylum claim. IN the USA, the problem is people sneaking in from Mexico could suffer heat exposure death; in Canada, those sneaking in sometimes risk frostbite and worse.
Partly too this is misinformation. We do repatriate economic migrants; it’s not an automatic “in”. But when the US announced it would no longer tolerate Haitian refugees since the earthquake and hurricane disasters were long over, some community members suggested people could sneak into Canada and automatically be allowed to stay. Not true.
There are calls here to send people back to the USA while their cases are heard; but then, the USA has different standards (the polite term). They for example might not recognize severe domestic violence or a country that persecutes gays as grounds for asylum. Some suggestion is that even gang violence (i.e. non-government law and order persecution) may not qualify.
So short answer - I don’t know if Mexico is considered a “safe” country for refugees. I expect it might, in which case asylum seekers could be turned back at the point of entry if they did things legally.
bolding mine
Not true in immigration matters.
Asylum seekers making a claim of credible fear are subject to mandatory detention on US soil subject to an initial screening. This is not an appearance before an Immigration judge but rather a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services asylum officer. If a determination is made that they have failed to make a claim for which asylum potentially may be granted* they are subject to Expedited Removal - immediate deportation. No judge involved. No right to legal counsel. No appeal.
- additionally US law provides that certain people are not eligible for asylum status such as terrorists, persons with a serious non-political criminal conviction in the US or abroad, persons who engaged in persecution of others, and so on.
What process is “due” isn’t always the same. :rolleyes: