Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "Asmongold Clips" channel.

East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "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
He's a lying sack of crap too.
1
What does thst mean since there us no such thing as a border czar? Does thst mean he's making Homan his DHS secretary, or is he growing government by adding a non existent burocrat.
1
@EpochEmerge just more false claims by the Right to manipulate its base.
1
@Nyet-Zdyes no he did not at any point ever, your puppet masters lied. There is no such position, it was made up.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l stop lying about the law. Asylum falls under title 8 1158. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country and requesting asylum. It's clearly written in our laws and treaty obligations and confirmed in federal court.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l and you are misinterpreting us v Aguilar. Courts riled point of entry was irrelevant East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. That reversed Trumps separation policy on asylum seekers that Homan still defends.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l clearly states its not a crime
1
@user-jk5um1om8l stop trying insert your opinion onto facts you are reading and claim that is what it says.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "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" §1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States 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), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
@user-jk5um1om8l Aguilar proved that they were told to lie about their asylum claim mif apprehended. That fraud is what invalidated their claim under title 8 1325. Stop making shit up.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l Just in case you need it repeated to you. 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
@user-jk5um1om8l How am I wrong it's clearly stated? Even Trump reversed his policy/ That's what's wrong with the right those who know actual facts lie and those who don't know lie about knowing.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l Again you misinterpret the truth. This was a clear violation that dismissed any ability to request asylum. "In May 2021, United States Border Patrol Agent Brandon Infiesto was patrolling the desert near the United States-Mexico border when he received notice that a suspected noncitizen, later identified as Osorio, had been spotted nearby. (E.H. 82-83.) Agent Infiesto proceeded to Osorio's last known location, where he observed footprints on and alongside an unmaintained dirt road. (E.H. 84.) After following the footprints for a short distance, Agent Infiesto observed Osorio duck behind a bush. (E.H. 84.) Agent Infiesto ordered Osorio to come out, and Osorio complied. (E.H. 86.) Osorio was wearing camouflage and carpet shoes, indicating, in Agent Infiesto's experience, that Osorio intended to conceal himself and avoid apprehension. (E.H. 86-87.)"
1
@user-jk5um1om8l Again you misinterpret the truth. Defendant is charged with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1), which provides, in relevant part, that "[a]ny alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall [be guilty of a misdemeanor]." See ECF No. 1. The Government alleges that on March 3, 2020, a United States Customs and Border Patrol ("Border Patrol") agent encountered Defendant on the side of the road at the intersection of Honey Springs Road and State Route 94, approximately nine miles north of the United States/Mexico International Boundary and approximately ten miles west of the Tecate, California Port of Entry. Id. at 2. The Government alleges that during the agent's immigration inspection, Defendant stated that he is a citizen of Peru, without immigration documents allowing him to enter or remain in the United States legally. Id. The agent placed Defendant under arrest and took him to the Border Patrol station for processing. Id. The Government alleges that Defendant was advised of his Miranda rights and agreed to answer questions without an attorney present. Id. During custodial questioning, the Government alleges that Defendant stated that he is a citizen of Peru and that he illegally entered the United States on March 1, 2020. Defendant's case proceeded under the "Streamline" process, which the Department of Justice uses to manage prosecution of misdemeanor charges brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1325
1
@user-jk5um1om8l And last but not least as it was harder to find. U.S. v. Ramirez-Ortiz was denied based on (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers. That debunks 4 of your false claims now, that they were charged regardless of their asylum claims it was because they were caught lying or eluding, and if they are trying to avoid detection they are not asylum seekers. That doesn't mean actual asylum seekers can be charged with a crime.
1
@scrawnyclownsnatch9656 people like Homan is why we have more crossing through check points undetected instead of through our ports.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l If they are avoiding detection they are not asylum seekers. Under US law and or article 31 of the Geneva Convention, they must present themselves to authorities to qualify under title 8 USC 1158 and article 31. If not and try and to avoid detection or admit they are in the country illegally without asking for asylum protections they are in violation of 1325. What part don't you understand in your BS? Everyone of your examples clearly showed that their asylum claims were not valid and that is why they were charged under 1325. the guy was wearing camo and carpet shoes while hiding and you are trying to claim that is asylum in your lie because it'sa ll clearly stated in the court documents on the first page of each. I certify you as a fing liar.
1
@user-jk5um1om8l you are such a liar. at the end of that it reflect on "The statutory scheme instead reflects congressional intent to allow criminal prosecution of aliens seeking asylum. Ramirez-Ortiz, 370 F. Supp. 3d at 1155." Ramirez-Ortiz, 370 F. Supp. 3d at 1155 links to the charge of §1325. Improper entry by alien (a)(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers. Thus showing that ruling that you cut out of the middle of your statement was tied to eluding authorities. in violation of 1325, his asylum case was irrelevant to that fact. Beyond that his initial response when questioned and waving his rights to have an attorney present saying he was in the country illegally and not requesting asylum at the l time of arrest. Again liar.
1
@Ken-j2u No court changed the law it's clearly written.
1
@Ken-j2u East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "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" §1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States 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), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
@Ken-j2u held their arms wide open for what?
1
@user-jk5um1om8l because you are clearly missing the point of that statement being directed to the previous case that denied the claim of asylum based on making false statements or alluding authorities. As I already pointed out.
1
@Ken-j2u wtf are talking about?
1
@Ken-j2u because you comment like it heard all the stupidity rolling around in your head. Make a clear statement of what you are saying.
1
@Ken-j2u " I said they illegally bypassed a law that's been ruled legal." you made the stupidest comment you can make with no context as to what you are talking about. WHO WHEN WHERE
1
@Ken-j2u no, that would be Harris and Biden and mayorkas who have held their arms wide open. no what what be them who held their arms wide open to what? following our laws. Make a complete statement, I can read your mind.
1
@Ken-j2u what law start with that? What court? when?
1
@Ken-j2u "except you are misinterpreting the law. The courts ruled ports of entry are legal entry points for immigrants, asylum or otherwise. They reversed a legal law, illegally. Courts cannot overrule laws like that, not when it's a federal law that applies to all states." This is saying nothing there are no details there is nothing specific. "no, that would be Harris and Biden and mayorkas who have held their arms wide open." This is saying nothing there are no details there is nothing specific. WTF are talking about?
1
@balamugunthbalaji8110 Thank you
1
Ken uses "and what not" as factual claims.
1
@alan133 he wasn't exciting the law, that's the point.
1
@Turamwdd yes and?
1
@Turamwdd How did I miss that when it's clearly written in the law and I support that process? Trumps immoral policies were denying them the ability to make a request to see if they qualified under our laws. How did I contradict myself, unless you are adding your assumptions to my comments.
1
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "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
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "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" §1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States 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), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1