Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "Arizona sheriff tells Biden to 'do your job' as border crossings surge" video.
-
2
-
1
-
@chaseviking5096 East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted 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) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaseviking5096 Because Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border. We also have laws requiring us to take unaccompanied minors. Those are the only two groups allowed legal access to our borders. The rest who do not qualify are put in deportation proceeding, BUT Mexico recently passed a law not allowing the US to deport non Mexican citizens back into Mexico. So anyone illegally crossing and are detained. We have to hold onto until we can find a way to return them to their country of origin.
Trumps wait in Mexico policy for asylum seekers that used a port of entry is also in violation of the INA laws 235(b)(1)(b) and international treaty. They are supposed to remain in country once the process starts, and that's a why they are crossing the border illegally. Because they have a better chance of winning their asylum case on US soil. That policy was also challenged and lost in court and in the appeals court. The appeals court put a stay on the order, because of the virus and Title 42. Title 42 was the only legal thing that helped Trump reduce immigration last year and it's the only thing Biden can use to circumvent those asylum laws. Trump was violating asylum laws prior to covid.
We've had a 17 year decline in southern border crossing. In 2007 we we're around 800,000 apprehensions per year and cut that in have in 10 years to the lowest it's been in 50 years, prior to Trumps policies. Those Trump policies saw use return to 977,000 apprehensions in 2019, it had not been that high in 20 years. Then we had covid and stopped immigration. Then in September of 2020 we were at 58,000 for the month, by October that number was 72,000. That was the beginning of this surge. Apprehensions continued to increase to 78,000, by January. Those period of months are typically over the past decade low immigration months, February is not. And there is usually an uptick this time of year.
1
-
1