Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "" video.

  1.  @Apistevist  How am I wrong? 8 U.S. Code § 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.
    5
  2. You mean like the 40 year US law that doesn't allow asylum seekers to be penalized for crossing a border of a safe haven country. Or the law that says once they make the request that they are to remain in the US. All these laws including the BS claim from Homan in this clip, were Trump's policies that were in violation of US law. The Right clearly does not have a clue what the law is.
    5
  3. Why because AOC has a clue what she is talking about and you don't? Trumps policy not the law, that Honan is defending was in violation of asylum laws. His policies doubled the number of border crossings. You people have no clue what's going on. Turn off the fake news.
    3
  4. Because she knew he was twisting the facts to build a false narrative. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for asylees to cross the border and request asylum.
    3
  5. Yes and a graduate of Boston U with honors. And she seems to know asylum laws better than the Right wing commentator in here who haven't a clue what the law states. She is correct Asylum is legal. There is no penalty for entry for an asylum seeker.
    2
  6.  @Jacko89  it does need explaining, because we have laws that do just that and the Right keeps getting it wrong. If you enter between check points seek out an agent and request asylum, it's perfectly legal and has been for over 40 years. Trumps policy that Homan is defending violated that law. They charged legal asylum seekers with a crime and separated their children as a deterrent to immigration not due to the law demanding that action.
    2
  7.  @deadshotdairy  I tried speaking slowly so the Right will be able to understand, but too many on the Right are just willfully ignorant of any facts that don't fit the narrative they want to believe. If you would like to question any of my claims they are all easy to find and irrefutable.
    2
  8.  @aphroditesaphrodisiac3272  No we don't just take their word for it. Please at least and try and have the slightest clue about the process before complaining about it.
    2
  9. You mean AOC who is correct on asylum laws or the people who voted in Trump. Who are clueless on immigration law or the fact that Trumps policies violated those laws.
    2
  10.  @Adempting  she's correct you guys are clueless and lack any morals what so ever. Trumps zero tolerance policy of criminalizing asylum, was a violation of the law.
    2
  11. Yet she is completely correct in this clip. And I see a lot of idiots in this comment section that have no clue what our laws are.
    2
  12.  @robwakefield4699  Asylum is legal. They are not required to use a port of entry as long as they seek a border agent and make the request. Trumps policy that Homan is defending, was a violation of US law and international treaty on the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. The policy was to separate children as a deterrent. Federal courts stopped Trumps policy use on Asylum seekers. Trump later removed the rest of his immoral policy of separations due to public demand, after his lost court appeal. The Right is consistently misinformed by Right Wing media manipulation on the southern border.
    2
  13.  @kh8655  well yeah just do a simple Google search on Asylum, but I will give you the court decision on the removal of the policy. "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"
    2
  14.  @kh8655  all one has to do is be on US soil to claim asylum. Once that claim is made to a border agent, how they entered becomes irrelevant. That's been the law for over 40 years.
    2
  15.  @kh8655  The verification process comes next and still does not require charges and separating. Trafficking is not something new, we have combated it for years without a need to charge legal asylum with a crime and separate. This policy had one goal and one goal only. To separate children as a deterrent to immigration, it does nothing to combat trafficking. In fact Trumps policies only made the trafficking problem worse. After a credible fear interview Asylees are to remain in the US. Trump created his remain in Mexico policy that violated immigration law. It also left asylum seekers on the same side of the border as the traffickers.
    2
  16.  @kh8655  no it's not an opinion, as the evidence is clear. They have a legal right to cross between check points and request asylum. Then when they are taken in to a location for an interview by a asylum agent they are vetted and verified. Traffickers typically do not turn themselves in to a border agent to request asylum. I think you are doing, as most on the Right, and you are conflating asylum seekers with an immigrant that is trying to avoid Border Patrol. They are not synonymous.
    2
  17.  @kh8655  easy as I said if they are requesting asylum they are asylum seekers, if they are not making the request then they are not asylum seekers and are just deported. There is no contradiction. The word typically was used to express my feeling of "no shit Sherlock" on traffickers not being asylum seekers. I wasn't trying to make that a statement of absolution.
    2
  18.  @kh8655  and the end of your claim does not explain why those who were legal asylum seekers and could be identified as the parents were still charged with the crime if crossing the border illegally and separated without having there children returned to them. Why are you still defending a policy that clearly was wrong and even Trump wouldn't own it when he wrote an executive order to stop the separations.
    2
  19.  @kh8655  at first yes we take their word for it. No I'm talking about the same issue just adding more context. Do you understand the purpose of Asylum?
    2
  20.  @robwakefield4699  AOC is simply correct. There is no legal penalty for an asylum seeker who crosses between check points if they seek out Border Patrol and request asylum. That is a fact proven in treaty in our INA immigration law and has been made clear through federal court. Trumps policy was in violation of the law. Obama did not have a policy of separations as a deterrent to immigration as Trump did and he was not charging any families with a crime for violating 8 US code 1315. The only separations was from those who committed other crimes like drug possession. Violation of 1325 for the first offense carries a civil penalty. Families crossing illegally, that were not requesting asylum, were detained and deported together under Obama. Your claims lack context and facts.
    2
  21.  @petercristo992  So a right wing talking head convinced the low informed on the Right that comments made in September 2019 is the cause of the current surge and your going to use that silly talking point to show more of your own ignorance. Trumps policy to force legal asylum seekers to remain in Mexico was a violation of INA laws section 235b1. Federal courts stopped that policy, and Biden is following that law. That was the surge he was talking about was his administration allowing those asylum seekers into the country as required by law. Those laws are what caused a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump taking office. That happened and the Right was oblivious to the fact because of their media. Once in office Trumps policies increased southern border crossing to the highest point in 20 years in 2019 at 977,000. The only time it decreased was during the pandemic. Numbers started to increase again last fall when apprehensions went from 58,000 in September to 72,000 in October. They continued to increase during historically low winter months. Biden is just following the law, the issue facing us now is the blow back from Trumps unilateral departure from the law.
    2
  22. No the problem us the overwhelming ignorance of the Right who don't understand that asylum is legal and are under separate statutes in our immigration laws. The general public know asylum is legal as it's common knowledge to anyone who isn't a Trump supporter.
    2
  23. The problem being, she is correct. it is the Right who is clueless on the law. Asylum is legal and they are not required to use a port of entry
    2
  24. AOC was asking him about asylum that was clear and she was correct. Homan spouted of a statute, 1325 crossing the border illegally. It is a federal misdomener that for the first offense carries a civil penalty. Asylum falls under 8 US code 1158. Both statues are under our 1980 INA laws. Asylum is the exception to 1325. Our asylum laws and international treaty from the 1958 (?) Geneva Convention, article 31. Homan is defending a Trump zero tolerance policy that violated 1158 and article 31, and not the law. The separation policy was an immoral policy to punish legal asylum seekers and immigrants not seeking asylum as a deterrent to other immigrants coming. Regardless of ligament status. Federal courts removed that policy in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Point to AOC, you guys got fooled by your media.
    2
  25. ​ @MrLarockera9  Yes that's the same BS propaganda. That's not what he said that's what the talking heads say he said. That was also a year ago. It's called a Right wing talking point for the low informed, because explaining the law and how Trumps policies have failed from the beginning doesn't fit the narrative from the Right. No one opened the border for 100 days. the reason for the Hotels and flights was due to Mexico refusing us to deport non Mexican nationals back into certain areas in Mexico. We had a 17 year decline in southern border apprehensions before Trump took office to the lowest pint in 50 years, and the Right was clueless about it. Those numbers doubled under Trump in 2019. The only time the decreased was due to covid. They began increasing last October when they went from 58,000 to 72,000 apprehensions. That's when the surge began. It continued to stay high during historically low winter months. This is the fall out of Trumps violation of immigration law. It will correct it's self by Biden following the law.
    2
  26.  @MrLarockera9  Trumps violation of INA section 235 b)1)b left Asylum seekers on the Mexican side of the border. Who else is on that side, cartels and traffickers. Now use some common sense and ignore the propaganda and guess how that ended. Trumps separation policy of legal asylum seekers children from parents violated 8 US code 1158, guess how that ended they started sending them unaccompanied. Any of that sounds more plausible then a claim that Biden's remarks over a year ago that said yes his administration will be following asylum law, is to blame for this surge.
    2
  27. Not exactly, but when do facts matter.
    2
  28.  @mariod818  your comment assumes, that they are all avoiding Border Patrol. That would conclude they are not asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not avoiding Border patrol, because that would change the definition of who they are. The Right has a problem with understanding differences between asylum, immigrant, migrant, and refugee. To be an asylum seekers all they have to do is be on US soil and request it, but you have to declare it. The Right is under the misconception that they are crossing the border and disappearing into the population without contact with authorities and think that is asylum.
    2
  29.  @mariod818  I don't need to justify anything the law is clear.
    2
  30. They are not illegal, they are discussing asylum seekers. That is legal.
    2
  31.  @keshavleitan7800  yes several things. One for the first offense 1325 carries a civil penalty. There is no reason to charge with a crime and separate. This was being done under Trump not due to the law, but as a deterrent to other immigrants. Asylum seekers are excepmt. They fall under US code 1158. Both 1158 and 1325 are under the INA laws passed by Congress. To request asylum all an immigrant has to do is be on US soil and request it. They are then vetted and verified and are then either given a hearing or deported. No where in that process are they to be charged with a crime and separated for the penalty of crossing the border. Federal courts stopped this policy about two years ago. Why the Right still supports it, is due to their media manipulating the facts and laws and many of you just lack any morals or compassion.
    2
  32. Except in this would be like charging the American with a crime and separating their child for driving 10 miles over the speed limit or for walking down the street. 8 us code 1325 for the first offense is a civil penalty and for asylum seekers it's not a crime at all.
    1
  33. I don't think that there is a better source or example than this propaganda clip,that explains how the Right gets its news and information. It has turned them into the most ignorant and low informed group of hate and fear.
    1
  34.  @csrboltfan2643  really. Have you read the law or treaty that Trumps policy violates? Have you read the court documents in the reversal of this policy? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?
    1
  35. No she is correct, it's the Right who is without knowledge.
    1
  36. Asylum is legal immigration.
    1
  37. She did expose an issue, it just went over the Right head as they don't know what's going on. it Doesn't help that this clip is highly edited to build a false narrative.
    1
  38.  @NZBear07  no it is clear the Right doesn't know immigration law. This propaganda clip that edited out the law that was made clear right where this clip cut in and began to manipulate the context to build a false narrative. This clip is the full extent of what the Right thinks it knows about immigration law. The Right doesn't even know the difference between asylum and immigrant or that asylum is legal and they are not required to use a port of entry. That's been US law and international treaty for over 40 years.
    1
  39. That is exactly what the Right is doing here. She is correct.
    1
  40. He is twisting the facts and she is correct. Asylum is a legal process that has no penalty for crossing the border. That's US law and article 31 if the Geneva Convention.
    1
  41. No Homan is lying and she knows it.
    1
  42.  @BERSERK263  he was twisting the facts to fit a narrative and defend Trumps policy and not the law. That Trump policy violated US immigration law and no longer exist. Asylum is a protected status and is exempt from 8 US code 1325. They fall under 8 US code 1158. It is a violation of US law and international treaty for over 40 years to penalize asylum seekers for crossing the border of a safe haven country.
    1
  43.  @BERSERK263  like I said you don't know anything.
    1
  44.  @BERSERK263  I could day the same about your precious comment that has no place in reality. The Trump administrations violations of immigration lawd didn't stop at separations. They did everything they could do to limit and restrict legal immigration including asylum. That is why there was an increase in between check point crossing a under Trump. If you had a clue what you were talking about you would know we had a 17byear decrease in southern border crossings to the lowest in 50 years prior to Trumps departure of the law that caused an increase. And your ignorant comment about Biden's pok8cy to increase Democrat votes just shows you don't have the ability to understand the subject let alone gave any information that is worth debating.
    1
  45.  @BERSERK263  I don't support AOC. I'm no fan of hers at all, and don't act as if the Right doesn't have a hard on for attacking her. She is 100% correct here and at this point that's all that matters. She is being attacked by the Right not because any of you are smarter or more informed, it's because you're all dicks.
    1
  46.  @andrewnichols1023  Just because of automatic registering does not mean they can vote learn how the process works. We have people every day that get drivers licenses, but can't vote due to there age, criminal history, or nationality ( yes we have legal non citizens who have access to drivers licenses so they can commute to work every day). None of these groups can vote. I can go online right now and register you to vote in any state as the forms are online. They still have to go to a county clerk who determines if that person is a legal voter.
    1
  47.  @andrewnichols1023  "Its biden’s immigration plan to citizenship, he wants to streamline the entire system and fast track millions of undocumented migrants to citizenship. This has been all over the news, I think I saw an article in the New York Times. There was an article by npr that said an immigration attorney from Pennsylvania contacted election officials saying he had clients that were receiving voter cards in the mail, after applying for a drivers license. I don’t know if it was happening nationwide, but definitely in Pennsylvania." Complete BS.
    1
  48. What he is claiming is not the truth, she is correct.
    1
  49. The ignorance falls on the Right who believes these highly edited clips and propaganda without looking at a single fact. It's just click bait to jump on the hate AOC band wagon. She is correct not in just morality, but in law. Homan is a lying SOB. Who is defending a Trump policy and not the law. This was a deterrent to immigration that violated immigration law.
    1
  50.  @mistawolfe8541  her argument is based on the law. As Trumps policy was immoral and it violated immigration law. I didn't insult I stated a fact.
    1
  51.  @mistawolfe8541  we have laws that define asylum seekers and the process. The Right just doesn't know what they are. Asylum seekers are legal they do not have to use a port of entry. Trumps policy violated US law and international treaty. Federal courts stopped it.
    1
  52.  @mistawolfe8541  I don't need to re-watch a propaganda clip that is highly edited. I've seen the unedited clip where asylum laws and procedures were clearly explained. At the end of that explanation is where Right wing media decided to start this clip, to build a false narrative for the low informed. An asylum seeker is not required to use a port of entry this is proved in law, treaty, and by the courts. Regardless of if they qualify, they still have a right to make the request. Once that is done they are vetted if they don't qualify for a hearing they are deported as a family. No where in that process are they separated and charged with a crime for crossing the border illegally. That policy only happened for a short time under Trumps zero tolerance policy before it was remove. She is no implementing the process stop trying to sound smart and build a false narrative when you clearly do not have any idea what you are talking about or the law. It is not a loose end of the law, and who give the President the right to unilaterally depart from the law to fit a Right wing agenda that is created out of misinformation, hate, and fear. It sure isn't out of intelligence or fact. By the way penalty for first offense of violating US code 1325 is a civil penalty for non asylum seekers. There should have never been any separations. This was a policy of deterrence not out of law or necessity. I will also add border crossing were at a 50 year low after a 17 year decline prior to Trump and his policies that double the number of people crossing the border in 2 years. People who like Trump and his policies are just completely ignorant of the context and fact of the failure of those policies. And stop using platitudes like it's a new word you just learned. Everything she said and I said is irrefutable and can easily be proven if you read any of the law.
    1
  53.  @mistawolfe8541  8 U.S. Code § 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
  54. ​ @mistawolfe8541  you assume the law is in error because it doesn't fit the Right wing agenda. Yes I can copy and paste a clear law that has to be changed through congress and not through a dictatorship. I can also paste many of the reasons this law and international treaty has been in place for 50 years, I can also weed out the rhetoric and talking points that have no basis in fact used to support this Right wing belief. All is irrelevant she was stating law, he was twisting the facts to fit a false narrative and Trumps policy that fail to do what he intended has made conditions at the border worse all can be quantified by data and not platitudes. And you are making excuses to make up for the fact you know nothing. all you can do is word salad in an effort to defend the tribe.
    1
  55.  @mistawolfe8541  you talk a lot for someone who says nothing.
    1
  56.  @mistawolfe8541  That's the problem you think this is a debate. It's not, you can't debate because you don't know anything.
    1
  57.  @mistawolfe8541  because that's what they are talking points and rhetoric I've heard them all before many times. You have no argument. The only one I heard was that you don't care what the existing law is because it doesn't fit your narrative therefore it has to be changed to fit your narrative for you to except it as law. That's the point you don't understand I don't give a damn about you opinion of the law. I give a damn that the law was violated and the harm it' s caused. I care about a President taking unilateral action to ignore a law to pander to his base. I care about President building a law enforcement agency that answers only to him, that is willing to penalize with an arrest that requires a separation for an infraction that carries a civil penalty.
    1
  58.  @mistawolfe8541  what argument would I possibly have other than follow the current law. You want metrics for keeping things the way they were. For the past 17 years we had a decline in birder crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trumps policy of separations and charging anyone with a crime that crosses between check points. After Trumps policies border crossings doubled to 977,000 in 2019. Not 9nly was his policy immoral and a violation of immigration law. It also failed.
    1
  59.  @mistawolfe8541  blablabla still talking and saying nothing.
    1
  60.  @mistawolfe8541  that's about the stupidest thing you've said yet.
    1
  61.  @mistawolfe8541  no it's called tour complete ignorance of the asylum process
    1
  62.  @mistawolfe8541  try not to pat yourself on the back too much as you are the only one who buys into your bullshit.
    1
  63. No she is the student that is asking the correct questions to inform the American people. You are one of those that slept through class and now have no idea what you are talking about or what the law states.
    1
  64. Republicans just created a 3.5 trill ion dollar deficit under Trump with socialist stimulus. I think you can give up the stupid talking point now.
    1
  65.  @oatnoid  There is nothing wrong with spending on social issues that promote the general welfare or having a safety net that also helps to protect those that are asked to pay more taxes. The problem comes when one side decides not to pay for that spending.
    1
  66. Actually no it's the Right that is clueless. AOC is correct asylum is legal.
    1
  67.  @waynelion-cachet35  crossing the border between check points and requesting asylum from a Border Agent is very legal. It's been US law and international treaty for over 40 years. Homan is full of crap.
    1
  68.  @waynelion-cachet35  he is protecting a Trump policy that violated asylum law. This policy was reversed in federal court. There is no criminal offense for crossing the border illegally for the first offense of non asylum seekers. There should have never been separations. It was a policy of deterrence to legal immigration.
    1
  69.  @waynelion-cachet35  lol you can't apply for asylum at a US Embassy or consulate. It's not the movies. You seem to be confusing asylum with an immigrant trying to cross and avoid detection. There is a difference and there is no penalty for asylum seekers who cross between check points. That's article 31 of the Geneva Convention and 8 US code 1158 of the INA laws.
    1
  70.  @waynelion-cachet35  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21 of the courts descision. 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
  71.  @waynelion-cachet35  That is why we have a system in place to vet and verify their claim. They have to go before an asylum agent. If they do not qualify they are deported. We have had this process in place for many years, it's not like trafficking is a new concept. No one just gets to say I'm asylum and get in no questions asked. They still have the right. Trumps policy was not designed to prevent crime. It was a deterrent to legal immigration. Trumps other immigration law violation was his remain in Mexico policy. After an asylum seeker makes their claim and they are given a creditable fear interview they are supposed to be detained in the US. Forcing them to wait in Mexico is not only a violation, but it also left asylum seeker on the same side of the border where they are vulnerable to cartels and traffickers. Trumps policies caused more damage in its failed experiment. From there yes we now have an surge of unaccompanied minors that by law Biden has to take in. Try doing some independent research outside your media bubble and you can see the disaster caused by Trumps policies throughout his last three years. Covid was the only reduction in immigration.
    1
  72.  @waynelion-cachet35  I'm sure the residents on the southern border enjoyed the 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump policies that doubled it in two years.
    1
  73.  @waynelion-cachet35  attempts were made to deal with the covid issue at the border. They were ignored by the Trump administration. And the Biden administration was mocked and ridiculed by the Right to put measures in place and on a short notice. We needed more detention facilities in place that were covid compliant, and also made us compliant with our asylum obligations.
    1
  74.  @waynelion-cachet35  It's laughable that you believe that talking point. About a statement he made over a year prior to winning the election and taken out of context. Yes that is what's called a right wing talking head looking for a narrative and over feeding that talking point until the viewers are brainwashed. What Biden was talking about was going back to following immigration laws that Trump was violating. Now I have no doubt that knowing Biden was not going to have the hardline approach and he was going to follow immigration law, that more decided to come. It's funny that people coming from a third world country, know our immigration laws better then the Right. But these laws are here for a reason.
    1
  75.  @waynelion-cachet35  I can actually use data, read court transcripts, the law and policies all in a timeline of events and see that yes it has to do with Trump. You are relying on propaganda and talking points. Yes there is major blame to lay at Trumps feet. Who out of the two of us sounds more informed?
    1
  76.  @waynelion-cachet35  actually it was from the Democrat debate a year earlier.
    1
  77. No one said there was no such thing as voter fraud. What there isn't is enough voter fraud to change an election. And yes we all can spell voter fraud without concern for YouTube police. Also AOC us correct its called asylum.
    1
  78. No he is not.
    1
  79.  @joeblack3721  no he isn't your on link proves that. Biden is taking on unaccompanied minors. He is not separating children from legal asylum seekers.
    1
  80.  @joeblack3721  the moronic statesman is trying to equate children coming into the country unaccompanied under Biden is the same as Trumps policy to separate children as a deterrent to immigration. That's trying to build a false narrative for the low informed on the Right. The outrage from the left came due to the separations from parents who immigrated legally and due to those separations caused the detainment facilities to be over maxed and children detained for longer then the legal limit. Happened two years ago about time for the Right to get caught up and get a clue.
    1
  81. Because she is speaking to Trump supporters.
    1
  82. Homan was defending a policy and not the law. That policy was on violation of the law and has been removed. Homan us twisting the facts.
    1
  83. The difference between you and her is she knows the law and you do not. This would be one of those laws the Right doesn't like or believe in so their media doesn't bother reporting the law.
    1
  84. The Right is full of idiots that don't know the law starting with this one. She is correct Asylum is legal. There is no penalty for an asylum seekers to cross and request asylum between check points.
    1
  85. No she is far more cleaver then the Right wing media wants you to know, that's why they need to create fake news to manipulate the facts to think she is wrong. All while the Right just gets more and more ignorant of the law and facts.
    1
  86. Yes you do, read the law. It's perfectly legal to cross between check points as long as you immediately request asylum from border patrol. AOC is correct there is no penalty, Homan is defending a Trump policy that violated our INA immigration laws. The penalty for first time offenders of non-asylum seekers crossing the border illegally is a civil penalty and should not require separations or charged with a crime. Trumps separation policy was a deterrent to immigration, it was illegal and immoral. This is Right wing propaganda to manipulate facts on the border, just about everything the Right reports about the border is completely wrong. I don't mean my opinion I mean provable with facts in context.
    1
  87.  @squirlking2 no what he did was rattle off a statute that does not apply to asylum. Asylum is legal. Asylim seekers can legally cross between check points and request asylum. They are exempt from 1425 and fall under 1158. They have had this legal right for over 40 years. Not only was Trumps policy a viilatiin of our INA laws, but they violated YS treaty. As per usual the Right is clueless and doesn't know the difference between those entering illegally and an asylum seeker. It's called a lack of education. This is common knowledge on the left. Trumps pol8cy was removed in federal court, prior to Trumps own removal of his policy that he called immoral and then tried to blame everyone else for his policy. Trust me from reading your comments you have no clue WTF you are talking about. You are a puppet for Right wing manipulated propaganda. This is all easy to prove and irrefutable in the law.
    1
  88.  @squirlking2  if the shoe fit. There isn't much the Right has reported on the border that is factual in context and they sure are not reporting the law. We had a 17 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trumps border policies. After those policies soutuern border crossing doubled to 977000 in 2019. The only reduction Trump had was due to cov7d and title 42, before those number started to increase again in October of 2020. Im sure this is all news to you, and never reported by the Right.
    1
  89.  @squirlking2  stop reading articles as it's not bleeping to educate you. Border crossing numbers are published and public for every month and by demographics. States do not dictate border policy it is federal. And if the Right was at all informed on border crossings they would know that there was a huge decrease prior to Trump and an increase after his policies. Not to mention that most of those policies were in violation of treaty and INA law. Asylum is a legal way of immigration. The Right seems to not understand the difference between that and a nin asylum seeker. Second most if you look at the demographica the majority are single adults crossing 8f ygey are caught and not seeking asylum they are deported. If they seek asylum they ate vetted.
    1
  90. Well she's correct. Asylum is legal. Homan is twisting the facts.
    1
  91.  @davidjj8027  like voting for Trump. I couldn't think of a more stupid decision. This clip proves how easily manipulated most Trump supporters are.
    1
  92.  @davidjj8027  there should be no doubt in any ones mind that Trump business and management abilities were a failure prior to his failed presidency. You had the ability to put a successful CEO in charge of the country and they were to moderate for the Right. I'd rather have someone who understands government and the ability to understand and write law, then one who has made a living making sacrificing the majority to make profits for the minority. Not that a Senator is any better in that regard, but if we are comparing him to Trump I'll take the sleazy politician any day.
    1
  93. The Right should be ashamed for it's support for Trump and this separation policy. She is correct asylum is legal. Trumps policy violated US immigration law on the treatment of asylum seekers. This policy was removed years ago, because it violated US law yet the Right still supports it. It's a disgrace to our country and our laws.
    1
  94. Yes the Right is using its feelings to believe a propaganda clip that is manipulating the facts and law. She is correct it has nothing to do with her feeling or the sex of the immigrant. It's the fact that ASYLUM is legal. There is no penalty for asylum seekers crossing the border and requesting asylum.
    1
  95.  @johnmelber1205  100%
    1
  96. And she is 100 percent correct here. The real problem is Right wing ignorance when they think they know something and they don't.
    1
  97. No the Right are the embarrassment, she was correct and Homan is twisting the facts. Asylum is legal there us no illegal entry for asylum seekers.
    1
  98.  @Birddog222  and as soon as you stop being so easily manipulated by your media puppet masters the sooner you'll have a clue what reality looks like for the rest of us.
    1
  99.  @currents_6344  I know exactly what I'm talking about. The facts are way to find and irrefutable.
    1
  100. I could say the same about the Right who don't know the difference between asylum (legal) and non asylum border crosser (illegal).
    1
  101.  @chad136  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  102.  @chad136  Learn our laws instead of guessing and assuming you are right.
    1
  103.  @chad136  Like the evidence I provided proves, they are not illegal and point of entry is irrelevant to asylum status. The left isn't giving them anything that the law doesn't already allow or require. The law has been in place for 50 year. It's called common knowledge unless you're on the Right. The only one confounding the truth is you trying to make it up as you go, when we both know you don't have a clue what the law is. I've read the law, I've read the policy, and I provided the court decision that removed the policy. There are not many facts on this subject I don't know about. You know none. You do a good job at parroting rhetoric and talking points, but don't have a fu cking clue what you are talking about. The process was getting fixed, but as the Right is completely clueless of any facts or detail on the time line of the southern border, because you live in a media bubble that distorts the facts completely, you will continue to be willfully ignorant of any progress.
    1
  104.  @chad136  because that's what you want. You don't care about facts or law you just want to disagree with the Left even when you have no clue what you are talking about.
    1
  105.  @chad136  yes that is exactly what you are looking for. You have no interest in learning any facts or laws that don't fit the narrative you want. All you came here to do was to criticize what you don't understand. And if you weren't so arrogant in your initial comment to me, knowing you had no facts, you might have received a different response.
    1
  106.  @chad136  And no it would be like a presidential order to charge drivers with a crime and separate their children for driving 60 in a 55. That's for anyone crossing the border illegally on the first attempt. As it carries a civil penalty. What Trumps policy does to asylum is like charging a driver with a crime and separating for driving a car at 65 in a 60/65 zone. Just cause the trucks have to drive 60 the other drivers do not. Do you get it yet?
    1
  107.  @chad136  still trying to act like you know something? The court did not rule on the legality of Trumps policy. They ruled on the lower courts complaint that had to do with a legal procedure. They just need to have the rule challenged by fulfilling those procedural need, but the higher court did not provide what that need is. So they have to guess. There are a few good articles to read that might help you understand if you can get out if the propaganda that you are drawn too.
    1
  108.  @chad136  lol you have a small mind. Where and how am I advocating for open borders or socialism? Is that code for my Right wing brain is incapable of understanding how laws work. The socialism argument is old and stupid when it comes from a group that supported a President that increased the deficit from 667 billion to 3.5 trillion mostly by passing one if the largest socialist stimulus laws this country has ever had. Do you guys know anything on any subject?
    1
  109.  @chad136  name one. Let's see what other propaganda that is easily debunked that you are willing to believe.
    1
  110.  @chad136  that's your opinion based on the narrative you want to believe. I can't use left wing talking points if I'm doing independent research. The fact that to be granted asylum all they need is to be on US soil and that they are perfectly legal is common knowledge. That alone was enough to challenge Homan statement. Article 31 clearly shows that Homan is wrong. So the question then becomes does article 31 have legal standing in US law. Our INA laws and our federal court says our laws do. Then Trumps own executive order to rescind the rest of that policy is also proof of Homan's lie. What is your evidence to continue to defend your side of the argument?
    1
  111. This is Right wing propaganda. It is perfectly legal to cross between check points, find a border agent, and request asylum without any penalty. This was a Trump policy and not the law. Federal courts stopped this policy as it violated US law and article 31 of the Geneva Convention.
    1
  112. That us exactly what the Right is doing as the are completely clueless on immigration law. AOC is 100% correct in this clip. Wake yourself up and actually read asylum laws instead of assuming you know the law. Next you will make up the law to fit your narrative and when that fails you will lie, all of you do it. That's how this policy for put in place and that's how the Right has defended it even after it was removed in federal court. And wow the NY Times ran an opinion piece so we should be living in fear. My God what is wrong with you people.
    1
  113.  @kevinhall5918  learn the difference between asylum and immigrant and read the law.
    1
  114.  @kevinhall5918  it's August we are still in Trumps economy, as his last fiscal end budget runs from 10/01/20-09/30/21. Biden hasn't done much to have any effect on the economy what are you basing your claim on?
    1
  115. Yes the Right looks completely stupid for not understand how asylum works.
    1
  116. No she is attacking him for a policy that violated US law.
    1
  117.  @xx_jason_blaze_it_xxy1837  Trumps zero tolerance policy.
    1
  118. You can do it in several as it'article 31 of the Geneva Convention, and it's in our laws US code 1158. Homan is a liar.
    1
  119. What's the penalty for low informed Right wing stooges who completely ignorant of immigration laws.
    1
  120.  @drelliott2833  let me guess you are a Trump supporter, enough said.
    1
  121.  @drelliott2833  yes I do, that's because I know context and you know propaganda. Also southern border crossing were in decline for the 17 years prior to Trump. To the lowest level in 50 years prior to Trump taking office. Under Trumps policies that number doubled by 2019.
    1
  122.  @drelliott2833  what's the penalty for wilfully ignorant Trump supporters, who act as if they know the law? When both of us know you have not read it and have no clue what it states. Yes I've read the law and yes I've read the court transcripts that overturned this Trump policy that was in violation of US immigration law. Have you or are you just believing in the false narrative you want to believe? That's called a rhetorical question.
    1
  123. You should learn how asylum laws work. Trumps zero tolerance was challenged in court and lost it no longer exist because it violates a 40 year old law and international treaty.
    1
  124.  @peteypo3727  that's the point you don't know the difference there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.
    1
  125. It helps to build the false narrative. If they just played the clip 30 seconds sooner it gives a completely different message.
    1
  126. There is no illegal way to request asylum. Learn the law.
    1
  127.  @askmewhosjoe6682  No she understands the law. Its trumps supporters who have no clue what they are talking about. You guys act as if you read the law, but you talk out your ass. The law is clear asylum is legal. They do not have to use a port of entry.
    1
  128.  @thizz707gr  she does understand and the law, clearly you do not. Stop being easily manipulated by Right wing media. Asylum us legal and they are not required to use a port of entry. This is common knowledge and has been law and international treaty for over 40 years. It's clear in the law, treaty, and in the court documents that stopped the zero tolerance policy use on Asylum seekers. This is another highly edited propaganda clip to manipulate the facts on the border for the low informed.
    1
  129.  @thizz707gr  no you just don't like the fact the law doesn't fit your false narrative. So now you want to stick your fingers in your ears close your eyes and start denying fact supported by evidence.
    1
  130.  @thizz707gr  It's not border hopping dip ah it. Learn the difference between an asylum seeker and someone crossing the border trying to avoid detection. It's not a hard concept. Set aside the hate and fear spoon fed by your media, read something outside off your bubble as you will learn nothing listening to crap you already agree with.
    1
  131.  @thizz707gr  §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
  132.  @thizz707gr  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  133.  @thizz707gr  Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  134.  @thizz707gr  trust me when I say the Right is completely clueless as to the law and what's been happening at the southern border for over a decade. Your media us just lying.
    1
  135. The Right are predictably wrong in immigration law and easily manipulated by propaganda. AOC is correct.
    1
  136.  @robertlemmon9186  After reading your comment and the comments of the rest of the low informed in here, I've made my selection well.
    1
  137.  @tunasandwich8049  Problem is it wasn't a crime at all. Clue is in the word asylum. There is no penalty for crossing into a safe haven country if they request asylum.
    1
  138. insult or not, directly addressing the subject didn't happen and the line of questioning was not shut down. He manipulated his response to avoid the fact that his policy was in violation of the law.
    1
  139. That's because what is happening now is due to policies by Trump that violated the law. What she was doing in this clip was challenging Trumps policy that violated the law. What Biden is doing is following the law.
    1
  140.  @2serveand2protect  I was not commenting on the Gala as it's not an issue and just an excuse for the Right to bitch because the Right has a hardon for AOC. I was commenting on Trumps border policy. That violated the law and Biden fixing those issue by going back to the law. Who gives a a shit what she was wearing at the Gala? Get some perspective and then get a clue what's really going on when your not focused on stupid shit.
    1
  141.  @2serveand2protect  you seem to be confusing yourself with someone who is informed. AOC is not even close to being any leadership on the left. She is a Congressional representative that most on the left disagree with on many of here issues, but she is correct on the asylum issue. I can see how living under communist rule made you such a supporter of Trump with his intent on building the America the Russia wants. Believe it or not there are many wealthy people in America that believe we should be taxing the rich. Just because the Right doesn't like to pay for its spending while creating a 3.5 trillion dollar deficit under Trump, the rest if US pay our bills.
    1
  142. The solution is understanding asylum laws. There is no penalty for asylum seekers. She clearly understands the law and Homan is twisting the facts.
    1
  143. Yet she was correct and he was lying . Look at the law.
    1
  144. Wake up yourself, the Right is so low informed they don't even know our immigration laws. She is correct.
    1
  145.  @vaughnmaurt5013  only useful idiot ate those viewing Right wing propaganda clips on YouTube and believing them.
    1
  146. Thank you someone gets it.
    1
  147. Why does defending US law and children being separated from their parents for a legal act so defensive to the Right? Ask yourself why is the Right continuing to defend an immoral and illegal policy that hasn't existed for 2 years. It's not like we don't have the ability to help them and our own while the Right does nothing on both ends. Her job here as a congress member is civilian oversight of an administration, using law enforcement that answer to the president, from independently departing from US law to fit an agenda and narrative for Right wing extremist.
    1
  148.  @Roboto129  irrelevant to the law. If they do not qualify they are deported. Still doesn't mean a President can take unilateral departure of the law to fit false narrative and rhetoric of the Right. And arrest parents and separate children of legal asylum seekers as a deterrent. This is why we have laws.
    1
  149.  @Roboto129  you last post had nothing to do with enforcement of the law. You were talking about the legitimacy of their asylum claim. They still have a eight to cross the border request asylum without penalty. That left your comment irrelevant to the discussion in this clip and irrelevant to the law.
    1
  150.  @Roboto129  if someone crosses the border illegally and they are not requesting asylum. That is a civil penalty that does not require an arrest and separation. If they are requesting asylum there is no penalty. There should not have been any separations under the law. It was a policy if deterrence.
    1
  151. Yet she us 100% correct.
    1
  152. No this is what happens when the Right has no idea what immigration law is.
    1
  153.  @macaltime2  not only is thee Right clueless on immigration law, but on just about everything going on at the border. This is a result of Trumps failed policies that destroyed the balance we had at the border. We had a 17 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 under Trump that number doubled to 977,000 for the year. The only reduction was due to Covid and title 42. Before the surge began again under Trump last October.
    1
  154.  @macaltime2  they're not illegal it's called ASYLUM. Learn the meaning and the law.
    1
  155.  @macaltime2  you should try reading the law first before sounding off like an idiot who thinks he knows the law. 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
  156.  @macaltime2  And what Biden was saying was that he was going to rescind Trumps remain in Mexico policy that is violating immigration law. That is who he was going to let in legal asylum seekers, but the right is too low informed to know who is legal and who is not. You guys treat them all equally with fear and hate.
    1
  157.  @macaltime2  Strange that, they would allow these far Right wing sites to spew lies but stupid fucks like you can't even post a comment to prove that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
    1
  158.  @macaltime2  No left wing idiots are deleting your comments or they would have deleted my last. It is the choice of the Right wing subscriber to not allow links, so I can't disprove their BS, by linking facts to disprove the false narrative.
    1
  159. And as she explained asylum is legal. The Right needs to learn the law and stop watching propaganda.
    1
  160. Why are they being arrested for not committing a crime?
    1
  161. Except that 1325 carries a civil penalty and for asylum seekers they are exempt as they fall under 1158. Homan is lying to protect a Trump policy that violated the law. It was a deterrent to immigration not a law. It's more like you getting pulled over for driving the speed limit and being arrested and your child separated to keep other drivers from speeding.
    1
  162. Says the Right who support policy that violates US law and international treaty. The only cancer is Right wing ignorance.
    1
  163.  @GrishnackhYT  the one in this clip. Trumps zero tolerance policy, violates article 31 of the Geneva convention and US code 1158 of our INA laws.
    1
  164.  @GrishnackhYT  because of the Rights inability to understand the word ASYLUM, and that they are not the same as those who are trying to enter undetected. We have law so would-be dictators do not unilaterally decide to depart from laws to appeal to low informed followers, who don't know what is giving on because all they listen to is propaganda manipulating the facts.
    1
  165.  @GrishnackhYT  allow me to fix Homan's description of the law. This is not like arresting a DUI driver. This is like a police officer pulling you over for driving the speed limit. Charging you with a crime and separating children. In an attempt to keep other drivers from speeding.
    1
  166.  @GrishnackhYT  Asylum is legal just like driving the speed limit.
    1
  167.  @GrishnackhYT  you know you're a Trump supporter when you talk out your ass, as if you know something, when we both know you don't have a clue what you are talking about and what the law states.
    1
  168.  @GrishnackhYT  That is not asylum. Why don't you learn the term before assuming that everyone at the border is an asylum seekers.
    1
  169. ​ @GrishnackhYT  oh look the inevitable defection into anything, when you discover you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You think your media's disdain for the facts in context and your ignorance stops at this clip. By the way your claim lacks proper context and understanding, look it up. Also if I'm in charge of a business that has 100 employees and there was an illness that was going to kill 3 of them, then yes I would require them to use some measure of protection. If those employees were first responder or health care workers, yeah I want them vaccinated. Why wouldn't I don't be stupid.
    1
  170.  @GrishnackhYT  remind me what's 3% of the american population that you don't seem to mind if they die, They are your voter base.
    1
  171. No that is not what she is saying learn the law.
    1
  172.  @bobsaget338  ASYLUM Seekers are not the same as an immigrant crossing the border and avoiding detection. Asylum seekers that cross the border between check points and request asylum from a Border agent, are legal. They are then vetted and either given a court hearing or are deported. The Right needs to learn the difference and turn off the Right wing propaganda that is manipulating the facts of the law and not teaching what the law is.
    1
  173. 8 U.S. Code § 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
  174. The Ice director is twisting the facts and lying and this highly edited clip is propaganda to build a false narrative and manipulate the Right wing viewer, she is correct.
    1
  175. No it's the Right that doesn't know the law and are using their emotions. US law does have specific codes for asylum and that was what this hearing was about. She is correct asylum is legal. There is no penalty for asylum seekers crossing between check points if the seek out a border agent. Homan is twisting the facts.
    1
  176. It is hard for the willfully ignorant no matter how many times you tell them. Yes AOC is correct and Homan is lying. Asylum is legal and there is no penalty for an asylum seeker that crosses between check points and request asylum.
    1
  177. No it didn't. The separation policy started and ended under Trump.
    1
  178. No she distinguished the difference. The Right wing media cut it out of the clip to build a false narrative.
    1
  179. That man lies and the Right has no idea what the law is.
    1
  180.  @jeremeyodell  Your comment is dumb. Homan was twisting his answer because it's a lie. The only false narrative came from him and the right wing media that cut this clip. AOC is completely correct in her statement and the Trump policy Homan is defending was a violation of US immigration law and was removed in federal court. Literally 90% of the game plan from the Right is to talk out your ass like you know something and if you don't then lie the other 10%, to push a false narrative.
    1
  181. What law was broken? Asylum is legal. There is no penalty for crossing between check points and requesting asylum.
    1
  182. Because she was correct, it's the Right that is clueless about immigration law. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for asylum seekers that cross the border.
    1
  183.  @mirozen_ No. When seeking asylum, point of entry is irrelevant to US law and international treaty. You're just regurgitating what he said and he is twisting the truth. Yes there is a vetting and verification process that comes later, but that is irrelevant to the fact they still can cross between check points seek out a Border Agent and request asylum without penalty. Homan is defending Trumps zero tolerance policy and not the law. That policy of separating asylum seekers violated US code 1158 and article 31 of the Geneva Convention. Federal courts removed this policy.
    1
  184.  @mirozen_  learn the difference between what an asylum seeker is and those who are not. That is the problem the Right is so low informed they don't know the difference or the law, so they assume what the law is. Asylum seeker must take the action to make the request once crossing the border. If they are avoiding detection them they are not an asylum seeker. And an asylum seeker still has to go through the process if their claim being vetted. If they don't qualify they are deported, but the still have a legal right to cross between check points and make the request without penalty.
    1
  185.  @mirozen_  so US immigration law is a scam for US immigration law?
    1
  186.  @mirozen_  Legitimate asylum seekers can cross anywhere they want, the law has been in place for 40 years there is a reason. No, once again you are making assumptions and claiming it to be reality. There is nothing wrong with our immigration laws or US code 1158, the only problem is the Rights ignorance of the law and procedures that address the concerns you are having and the Right willingness to assume that rhetoric, and believe applies to all asylum seekers. The Right wants to assume that all asylum claims are illegitimate, before the request is made. As I said there is a process the first step is getting on US soil and requesting asylum. Then we can vet them to see if they have a valid claim. It is still completely irrelevant to the fact that Trumps policy of separating children was the only violation of the law, and the Right is willing to continue to defend that completely immoral policy, even when Trump would not defend his own policy and tried to blame it on everyone else.
    1
  187.  @mirozen_  No the fu ck it doesn't. You guys don't know sh it, you act like then you make sh it up. US code 1325 and 1158 that refer to asylum. Two total separate sections of the INA laws. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe have country. That has been US law for 40 years and international treaty in article 31 of the Geneva Convention.
    1
  188.  @mirozen_  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  189.  @mirozen_  those bypassing border Patrol are not seeking asylum. Asylum us dine between check points because they can be turned away at check points m check points have minimum quotas. And the Trump administration did everything they could to limit asylum at a port of entry. Those at points of entry under Trump were forced to wait in Mexico for their hearing. That also was a violation of immigration law and the reason for the increase in unaccompanied minors and trafficking.
    1
  190.  @mirozen_  1.235b1b of US code 1158. 2.I answered two in my second to last comment. 3.Not really any different than two. We have always in the past been able to meet those goals without an immoral policy that presses charges and separate children as a deterrent. And not for just a little while, there are several thousand still not reunited with asylum seekers. And as soon as they request asylum from a border agent they are not treated suspected as criminals, they are treated as asylum seekers. Keep in mind the penalty for violating US code 1325 for non asylees in the first offense is a civil penalty. It does say that those law supersede those penalties as the federal courts decision, article 31, and 1158 clearly have stated. You are correct about what Trump should have focused on.
    1
  191.  @mirozen_  it was not a legal opinion it was a violation of the law. And this is not about a policy that removes a child for a short period of time to ensure that these were the parents. This was a policy designed to press criminal charges as a deterrent for an action that is one legal for asylum and a civil penalty for non asylum seekers. This was not the way you are trying to frame it. One only has to read the law and the court battle that stopped this policy.
    1
  192.  @mirozen_  Ok that takes less then 30 seconds after they cross to make that determination. At that point criminal charges and separations would not be neccessary. And that should be the end of Border Patrol involvement. Then they are taken to an asylum agent who verifies thier claim and gives them a creditable fear interview. Still at this time no criminal charges are imposed and the family is detained together. If they fail that asylum agent screening no charges are filed and they are deported together. If they pass a creditable fear interview they are allowed to remain in country until their hearing. This has been the process for over 40 years, with the exception of Trumps short term policy if separations. Not due to the law, but as a deterrent. We also don't charge unaccompanied minors with a crime when they cross the border. They are automatically put in an asylum proceedings. AS THERE IS NO LEGAL PENALTY FOR ASYLUM SEEKER CROSSING A BORDER OF A SAFE HAVEN COUNTRY.
    1
  193.  @karlrschneider  if you knew anything about immigration law you would be the only one on the Right who has a clue, but you are just another loud mouth with no idea wtf you are talking about.
    1
  194.  @michealstrom4425  considering the company it's not that hard to be smarter than the rest of you. It's not that you guys are all stupid your just willfully ignorant of anything that doesn't fit your narrative and the only narrative you care about is disagreeing with the Left. It's not like you know the law. You and I both know that, but you will lie and act as if you do know something. Can you specifically state where I'm wrong and prove it? Nope.
    1
  195.  @michealstrom4425  8 U.S. Code § 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
  196.  @michealstrom4425  Violation of 1325 carries a civil penalty, there is no reason to charge with a crime and separate. unless you're too stupid to bother and read the easy to find and irrefutable evidence that you don't care about. Do you think you are the first dumbasss troll trying to talk like you have a clue.
    1
  197. There is no penalty for asylum seekers to cross between check points and request asylum.
    1
  198.  @roykinder4134  asylum is not sneaking in and demanding accommodation. Understanding the difference and then read the law. There is no penalty for an asylum seeker to cross between check points and requesting asylum. In fact it's recommended as it increases the success rate of winning their asylum court appearance. Many are turned away at check points. Once on US soil the chances increase as they have to be turned over to an asylum agent. She is not trying to change the law she is protecting it. Homan is defending a Trump policy that was in violation of US immigration law.
    1
  199. The Right is so low informed and ignorant if the law they think she was wrong. I always love the confidence of Right wing comments when they clearly have no clue about the subject matter. Asylum is legal, there us no penalty for crossing a border of a safe haven country if they seek out an agent and request asylum. That law has been in place for 40 years.
    1
  200. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  201. You would be wrong in this case. That's the problem with the Right you trust your media too much.
    1
  202.  @brendanprimus3211  Asylum is legal and it can be requested anywhere on US soil, the point of entry is irrelevant. Homan stated 8 US code 1325, that makes it a misdemeanor for first time offender for crossing the border between check points. It carries a civil penalty. Makes you wonder why there are separations and arrest for this infraction, as it has not for any previous administration. Asylum falls under 8 US code 1158 and they are an exception to 1325. Federal courts stopped this policy use on asylum seekers. After his appeal loss trying to keep the policy, Trump under public pressure later removed the separation policy on all families crossing between check points. Then Trump blamed Obama and Congress for his separation policy. I made the easy assumption of you being on the Right based on the ease at being manipulated by Right-wing propaganda and on a lack of knowledge on long held and basic asylum laws, that do not fit the narrative of the Right.
    1
  203. He was not following the law.
    1
  204. Lol it's Right wing propaganda, it's supposed to make him look good. Unfortunately it's common knowledge for those not on the Right that asylum is legal. Yes he spouted off 8 US code 1325, but asylum falls under US code 1158 of the same INA laws. And if they are requesting asylum they can cross anywhere they want as long as they seek out a border agent and request asylum. Homan is defending a Trump policy and not the law. AOC is correct.
    1
  205.  @John-mp2jz  I'm aware of those rules and the law. Have you read the law or are you going to assume you know like the rest?
    1
  206.  @DOMadorable  §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
  207.  @DOMadorable  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  208.  @DOMadorable  means if you are requesting asylum it's irrelevant. And it sure doesn't mean ran arrest and separation for what would be an infraction.
    1
  209.  @DOMadorable  I don't understand the first question. Why would US code 1158 mention separation?
    1
  210.  @DOMadorable  there is no law requiring an arrest or separation for crossing the border illegally for the first offense. It's a civil penalty. Families are detained and deported together. If someone crosses the border illegally, but request asylum there is no penalty no arrest and no separations. Trumps policy not the law called for criminal charges and separations to anyone crossing between check points, as a deterrent to other immigrants. So it's more like driving 65 in a 55/65 speed limit and being charged with a crime and separated to keep other drivers from speeding. Federal courts reversed the policy use on Asylum seekers and Trump stopped all separations due to public outcry against his policy.
    1
  211.  @DOMadorable  no they are detained together as a family just as they have prior to Trumps policy and after he was forced to remove his policy. This was not a policy to keep children out of danger or because any legal reasoning. It was done to deter legal immigrants and that is all.
    1
  212.  @DOMadorable  one this would not include anyone requesting asylum. And yes Trump could under 1325 charge non asylum seekers and separate as he continued to do after federal courts stopped his policy use on Asylum seekers. Yet due to public back lash Trump wrote an executive order to stop all separations of families crossing between check points and continued with the policy of previous administrations. That was to detain and deported families together, without criminal charges or separations.
    1
  213.  @DOMadorable  do you actually think that we can afford to give all of them due process in court and pay for their court appointed attorney and court cost for a federal misdemeanor. Or does it make more sense to just deport them. Yes I support legal immigration just like most of the left regardless of Right wing rhetoric claiming otherwise. Question is does the Right support legal immigration. And the Right does not. First the Right would have to know what is legal and that doesn't fit with their narrative. The Right would have to be informed on the policies being put in place by their leadership and they do not. The Right has been at war with legal and illegal immigration with it's hardline policies, many of them violate immigration law and treaty .
    1
  214.  @DOMadorable  1325 does not require an arrest you pasted what the law states. The penalty is a civil offense that can range from a fine to imprisonment or both. Only under Trumps policy was it required to be both. No other presidents where charging for a crime for the first offense of crossing the border, and after Trump s EO neither was he. What's so hard to understand?
    1
  215.  @DOMadorable  no it's not my imagination. Either by policy created under Trump and or the Rights ignorance of those policies. It's there in the rhetoric and in black and white. And it's all being done because of the rhetoric and false claims of immigrants voting.
    1
  216.  @DOMadorable  I've read the law and the court transcripts on the ruling on the policy that no longer exist. I've read article 31 of the Geneva convention, that also makes it clear that there is no penalty for crossing the border of a safe haven country of they seek out a border agent. It's been law for over 40 years and us common knowledge to anyone not on the Right.
    1
  217.  @DOMadorable  what part of this is hard for you to understand? "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
  218.  @DOMadorable  you've been given everything twice now to show what the law states yet keep trying to find error in my pointing out clear in the law and courts interpretation. It was an illegal and immoral policy that no longer exists. Wtf is wrong with the Rights complete ignorance in that understanding.
    1
  219.  @DOMadorable  what updated code article? I'm not understanding any of your last comment.
    1
  220.  @DOMadorable  no quite the opposite. It is the Right that is assuming all asylum claims are not legitimate before immigrants are at the border to make the claim. None of your last comment applies as we are talking not talking about immigrants that are avoiding capture. They are presenting themselves to a border agent between check points and requesting asylum. I've already provided evidence twice to that being a legal means of asylum.
    1
  221.  @DOMadorable  you seem to continue to circle back around to the point of not knowing what you are talking about. You can keep saying it, but it will never be reality. Just more willful ignorance of the Right when they here facts they don't like.
    1
  222.  @DOMadorable  no what im saying is what the law states. You only think I'm supporting illegal immigration, because you are completely clueless and willfully ignorant of the facts and law that have been clearly provided to you. Because your simple little mind can't except the distinction between those requesting asylum and those avoiding detection. Let me say it again so there us no confusion. You are wrong and don't know WTF you are talking about
    1
  223. She does understand and she is correct. This is a propaganda clip.
    1
  224.  @leeturnbull2082  She is correct that asylum is legal and that part of that legal status is they have the ability to cross between check points and request asylum. That's been law for over 40 years. Homan is defending a Trump policy that violated asylum law, he is not defending the law. The policy was removed in federal court. in 2019. If you had seen this entire debate you would know what asylum law was, as it was clearly stated just before this propaganda clip began. Right wing media edited it out to build this false narrative, and manipulate the Right wing viewer who is completely clueless on immigration law. Yes she was correct and yes this policy was extremely immoral as it was being done as a deterrent to legal immigration. Trump wont even own the policy, and the dumb-ass Right still believes it's a good policy. Maybe read the law instead of believing propaganda and acting like you know something when you clearly don't.
    1
  225. Says the guy that doesn't know what he's talking about. She is correct.
    1
  226. The only ones using their feeling, are the one in here on the Right who have no idea what the law is yet think Homan is speaking the truth. Asylum is legal and point of entry to request asylum is irrelevant that's been law for over 40 years.
    1
  227.  @noteasilyoffended4649  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
  228.  @noteasilyoffended4649  No. That would be in violation of US law and international treaty. You can not penalize an asylum seekers for crossing the border of a safe haven country. That's been law for over 40 years.
    1
  229.  @noteasilyoffended4649  violation of 1325, for first time offender, carries a civil penalty for non asylum seekers. There should not have been any separations for this infraction.
    1
  230. She has honors at Boston U while bar tending. And she is correct in her interpretation of asylum. Asylum is not open border it's the law and it's been for over 40 years. Homan is lying.
    1
  231. No that was a stupid argument, thinking your private property and the laws of our border for refugees and asylees have anything in common.
    1
  232. They are legal, it's called ASYLUM.
    1
  233.  @justme4510  all you have to do is be on US soil and request it. And the application process comes later. They still have a right to cross between check points and request without criminal charges.
    1
  234.  @jacobdanner1937  if they are not doing it legally then they are not asylum seekers. You seem to be missing the point those who are doing it legally are being punished. You don't defend a policy that punishes others for the illegal actions of another group.
    1
  235.  @aphroditesaphrodisiac3272  your making an assumption based on what you want to believe. That's why we have law so we don't react to every dim witted assumption by the low informed Right.
    1
  236.  @jacobdanner1937  yes listen to this entire uncut cspan congressional hearing. Read the zero tolerance memo from Trumps policy of separations. Then read the law and the court transcripts that overturned this policy that violated our 1980 INA laws.
    1
  237.  @jacobdanner1937  even better after listening to this clip read that zero tolerance policy then read the memo released by Trumps AG that rescinded this policy that was in violation then read Trumps executive order on ending family separations. Where he blamed Congress for his policy.
    1
  238.  @jacobdanner1937  Then why did a federal judge have to stop this policy from being used on asylum seekers. Why did Trump appeal that decision if it wasn't being used on asylum seekers? Why did Trump lose the appeal to use his policy on asylum seekers? Why afterwards did his AG rescind the zero tolerance policy and claim it was "inconsistent with our principles"? Why are there several hearings like the one in this clip that are solely to discuss asylum seekers and Trumps policy that was criminalizing legal asylum? Yes there is plenty of evidence to this happening, but you won't find it in a Right Wing media bubble. If you read page 2 paragraph 2 in the summary page of the zero tolerance memo. It clearly states. "Under the zero tolerance policy. They prosecuted all adult aliens apprehended crossing the border illegally with no exceptions for asylum-seekers or those with minor children. DOJ's policy represents a change in the enforcement of the existing statute rather than a change in statute or regulation."
    1
  239.  @jacobdanner1937  once again you are making a false assumptions based on the narrative you want to believe in your willful ignorance of the facts. The evidence is clear and easy to find.
    1
  240.  @jacobdanner1937  show you what number, the number of asylum seekers that were charged? How about 1, because that's how many it takes to make it wrong. Stop looking for a way to defend an action that Trump and his administration won't own as even they knew how immoral a policy it was. Yes the existed and yes it was designed 8n an effort to criminalize an action that is not a crime. They did it to pander to the low informed on the Right. Then They tried to blame it in everyone else. Go read something and try and learn something or keep trolling and fuck off.
    1
  241.  @jacobdanner1937  crossing between check points and requesting asylum is legal that's been proven in court and is clear in our laws.and its been that way for over 40 years If they are not requesting asylum after crossing the border than they are not asylum seekers and would not be part of the discussion. Let's also keep in mind that crossing the border illegally for non asylees, is only a civil penalty for the first offence and still would not require charges or separations. We always kept families together and deported them together. Prior to Trumps policy and we have for the most part after Trumps policy was removed. It's about time the Right joins the rest of us in this reality and not their assumption of the law.
    1
  242.  @jacobdanner1937  And the number you are looking for is over 4000 children separated at the border under this policy.
    1
  243.  @jacobdanner1937  how about under a Democrat President we start tossing Trump supporters in jail and separate their children for no legal reason at all and we won't even care to look at how many because it won't matter.
    1
  244.  @bluu3268  no says someone who has taken the time to read the law and knows more about the subject than any of you.
    1
  245.  @luisarmandoperez6287  wrong it doesn't matter where they cross at all if they seek out an agent and request asylum. That is the law, your assumption of the law or your opinion is not what the law states. The problem is the Righys inability to understand the word aaylum, and at the point of crossing the requirements to qualify are irrelevant. They still are not charged with a crime or separated from their children. If after they have a screening by an asylum agent, and don't qualify, they are deported together. That is how the system is supposed to work. Until you get a bunch of immoral di ckheads in the WH who think they know better. There policies were not only immoral and illegal they damaged the balance that we had to the system, that gave us a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest level in 50 years. Before Trumps policies doubled that number by his second year.
    1
  246.  @BamaShinesDistillery  actually you do just show up to the border and request it, and then they go through a vetting process for verification. They still can legally cross and make the request without penalty.
    1
  247.  @BamaShinesDistillery  again port of entry is irrelevant when requesting asylum this is a 40 year old law and 50 year old treaty obligation. It has been confirmed in federal court. An Asylum seeker can cross between check points and request asylum without penalty. That is article 31 of the Geneva Convention and 8 US code 1158 of the 1980 INA laws. After they request from a Border Agent they are taken to an asylum agent for a creditable fear interview. If they qualify they are given a court date. If they do not they ate deported together as a family. At no point ate they charged with a crime and separated for the infraction of crossing the border illegally. That was a Trump policy not the law. That policy violated the law and was removed.
    1
  248. To request asylum you need only one thing and that is being on US soil. To qualify you have to show creditable fear. And making the assumption they all don't qualify prior to making the request is also not vetting or verifying.
    1
  249.  @BamaShinesDistillery  you are guessing and assuming based on what you want to believe. Read the law and the court transcripts that stopped this policy as it is not law. The law for the first offense carries a civil penalty. It does not apply to ASYLUM.
    1
  250.  @BamaShinesDistillery  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  251.  @BamaShinesDistillery  Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  252.  @BamaShinesDistillery  as soon as a creditable fear interview us given and a court date is given the asylum seekers are to remain in the US. So no your last claim is completely false, with exception to the last sentence. They still have a right to the request. Trumps remain in Mexico policy was also violating the law.
    1
  253. Why would she be more concerned with unaccompanied children, then a policy that snatches children away from legal asylum seekers?
    1
  254. No he is twisting the facts she is 100% correct. Asylum us legal they do not have to use a port of entry.
    1
  255. Just smarter than the Right commenting about this clip, because the Right is clueless on immigration law.
    1
  256. Yes it does because our asylum laws on entry are no different then those international treaties we have agreed to. There is no penalty for crossing the border and requesting asylum.
    1
  257. She did have him, the Right is to low informed about the law to know it.
    1
  258. He quoted a code, not the one that covers asylum. That would be 1158. according to the law and international treaty asylum seekers only have to be on US soil to request asylum and point of entry is irrelevant. Homan is defending a Trump policy, not the law.
    1
  259. If you speed 5 miles over the speed limit are you expecting to be arrested and have your child taken, that is about the same as the civil penalty of crossing the border illegally. Now keep in mind these are legal asylum seekers not just immigrants crossing the border illegally. So what it's really like is you driving a car 65 in a 65/55 speed zone, and being arrested and having your children taken for something that is legal. Homan is not defending immigration law he is defending a Trump policy that violated immigration law.
    1
  260. None of you have it right. These are asylum seekers. That means they have a legal right to cross beteeem check points and request asylum without penalty. Homan is twisting the facts and defending a Trump policy that violated immigration law and international treaty. Yes this was an immoral and illegal policy. And so is remain in Mexico.
    1
  261. Violation of 1325 for non asylum seekers for the first offense, is a civil penalty. There should not be any separations for first time offenders for the infraction if crossing the border for the first time. That's why this policy was removed over 2 years ago.
    1
  262. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  263.  @davidwang1326  That asylum is legal and they are not required to use a port of entry and you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
    1
  264. No not the same nice try.
    1
  265.  @terrenceroberts6074  Obama did not have a separation policy and did not separate families for the civil penalty that comes with the infraction of violating US code 1325 illegal entry. And he sure didn't separate families of legal asylum seekers and charge them with a crime.
    1
  266.  @terrenceroberts6074  that leaves out a lot of context and fact. And shows you have no interest in being informed, but only want to build on a narrative used by your media to manipulate the facts. Did Obama detain unaccompanied children, those caught with traffickers, or those from parents that had committed other crimes. Yes as did every President, in accordance with US law. He did not however separate children and charge asylum seekers with a crime for crossing the border. That was only the Trump administration and that was a violation of the law. Asylum is legal and there is no penalty. You don't seem to be able to distinguish these details in your attempt at being willfully ignorant of events.
    1
  267. She is correct asylum is legal. Maybe the Right needs to learn the law or leave the country.
    1
  268. Learn the term ASYLUM and what the law is, she is correct.
    1
  269. Just like the Right has done about this issue, because they sure don't have a clue what asylum laws are.
    1
  270. It doesn't require a president to unilaterally ignore congressional law and separate children from legal asylum seekers. That is a violation of the constitution. And it didn't secure the border.
    1
  271. Asylum is legal.
    1
  272. Now learn the meaning of ASYLUM.
    1
  273.  @josea7519  wrong type of Asylum, but just what I'd expect.
    1
  274.  @josea4351  apparently your deflection irrelevant. As you have already shown you are completely clueless on your understanding of immigration law. Why would I think you are informed on any of those issues? To call out anyone as a socialist after Trump and Republicans spent the last 4 year's spending like drunken socialist and ran up a 3.5 trillion dollar deficit.
    1
  275.  @josea4351  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
  276.  @josea4351  that's correct you can lead a Trump supporter to water, but can't make him think. They are willfully ignorant of anything that doesn't support the false narrative they want to believe.
    1
  277.  @josea7519  yeah I get it your an idiot.
    1
  278. She's correct about everything she said in the clip. Its the Right that is clueless of the law.
    1
  279. Homan lied and the Right is clueless.
    1
  280. She 8s completely correct. The Right is clueless on immigration law and the border.
    1
  281.  @ftfwpww028  funny how he isn't and that you have no clue what you are talking about. Funny how not being right or left, yet you still easily absorb the Right wing propaganda without any effort.
    1
  282.  @ftfwpww028  Biden has to continue with remain in Mexico for the time being until he can properly remove it, but he's been trying to remove that policy since he's been in office. It's a policy that violated US law and international treaty, and was the cause of all the problems that lying Ted and his friends were so concerned with when they went to the border. Biden is not using any of Trumps other failed border policies. I'm "nonchalant" because I'm informed and not basing my beliefs on rhetoric and propaganda clips, but facts supported by evidence.
    1
  283.  @ftfwpww028  sorry just had to add. As far as not personally exposed to a problem and being nonchalant. This policy that Homan is defending is not the law it was A Trump policy to deter legal immigration. They were separating children from parents who came here legally. I think my focus on the facts is just fine, work on your own.
    1
  284.  @ftfwpww028  if I'm drinking the kool aid, than what is the policy you claim Biden is still following?
    1
  285. Try and learn the word asylum. There us no illegal entry if they ate claiming asylum.
    1
  286. She does know the law, she was correct. Keyword being ASYLUM.
    1
  287.  @painimwok6473  the Right has no clue what the right way is. For asylum crossing the border between check points is legal and the right way. There is no penalty for crossing the border between check points if the seek out an agent and request asylum. And even if they are not seeking asylum there is still no reason for separations. Never has been prior to Trump and there hasn't been since Trump was forced to stop this policy 2 years ago. Trumps policy was a violation of the law.
    1
  288.  @painimwok6473  and if you look at the unedited clip the law is made clear just prior to speaking with Homan.
    1
  289.  @ObsidianJayMusic  why does my age matter? I alway love to hear the answer to that question before I prove it wrong. As the Right has done this to AOC often in this comment section and I find that funny because she is correct. What specific are you referring to with Biden's policy and your concern. Keep in mind I'm no AOC fan, but she is correct here.
    1
  290.  @kh8655  1325 does not apply to asylum request, it's that simple. Also let me add that first time violation of 1325 is a civil penalty. And has never prior to Trump been used to charge families with a crime or need to separate. Families were kept together and then deported. If they request asylum then they are taken to an asylum agent who screens them and decides weather their claim has merit, enough to get a court date. If they pass a credible fear interview they are to remain in the US until that court date. Trump was violating that statute as well.
    1
  291.  @radrook2153  it's quite clear it is the Right that doesn't seem to understand the word asylum and it's status.
    1
  292.  @user-jd3ip1kr3y  yes that has been the Right wing talking point to cover for this immoral and illegal policy. Trafficking is not something new and we have never needed to charge legal asylum seekers with a crime and separate children to combat it. It was not necessary prior to Trumps policy and it was not needed after Trumps policy was removed. This was a policy to deter immigration not to combat trafficking. Let me add that Trumps remain in Mexico policy that also violated US law, is responsible for an increase in trafficking. The Right will blamed Biden because they are clueless about what is happening at the border then and now.
    1
  293.  @user-jd3ip1kr3y  there is no change to the law only Trumps policy that ignored the law as he had his own agenda that 2as not part of the law. Asylum seekers were being charged with a crime and separated for crossing the border illegally. There 8s no penalty for asylum seekers crossing between check points when they request asylum. Trumps policy violated that law. SCOTUS did not rule in the legality of remain in Mexico, they ruled that Biden's removal if the policy did not follow the correct procedure. And yes by forcing asylum seekers to remain on the Mexico side of the border is why trafficking has increased as cartels gave easy access to asylum seeker waiting. What in Mexico policy is a clear violation of 235b1b of US code 1158 of the INA laws.
    1
  294. No it's like she knows the law perfectly well and the Right is completely clueless and easily manipulated by Right Wing propaganda.
    1
  295.  @commoncents6685  wth are you talking about. We have immigration laws written 40 years ago in the INA. Trumps policy that Homan is defending was in violation of that law. Congress is not trying to or does it want to change the law. What they are doing is exposing the violation of Trumps policy. It was removed in federal court. AOC is completely correct. The details and context of the law was edited out of this clip to build a false narrative and manipulate the low informed on the Right who have no clue what the laws are or what has been going on at the border. Learn the law and stop being easily fooled by propaganda.
    1
  296.  @commoncents6685  That is not the job of Congress, that's the job of the courts. Learn how our government and laws work. Federal courts did stop Trumps policy as it was in violation of US law. Trump later rescinded his zero tolerance order. This policy was not only illegal bit extremely immoral. Good to see so many from the Right still in support of that immorality.
    1
  297.  @commoncents6685  they don't get 15 years or 2 years. It's a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense for crossing illegally, unless they are requesting asylum and it's not any penalty at all. There should be no separations for first time offenders.
    1
  298. She does know asylum law. It's the Right who does not and has allowed themselves to be manipulated by propaganda.
    1
  299. He is lying and she us correct read the law.
    1
  300. Asylum seekers do not have to use a port of entry that has been law for over 40 years. For asylum point of entry is irrelevant. Stop being sheep for Right wing propaganda and lies.
    1
  301.  @pugowner1347  I'm the only one of the two of us that has read immigration law. Asylum is a protected status. They can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty. Trumps policy violated US code 1158.
    1
  302.  @pugowner1347  yes your media has turned you into a useful idiot wearing a brown shirt for believing in the false right wing propaganda and absorbing it so easily. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  303.  @pugowner1347  who isn't following it. Trump clearly was not. Yes there is a verification process that comes later. They still have a right to make the request. And if they are crossing and not making that request then they are not asylum seekers.
    1
  304.  @pugowner1347  except every time I see the Right trying to prove the claim that you are making I always find that it is the Right that is being manipulated by false propaganda even when they think the left is doing something nefarious the facts and context you get from tour media is always false. Im not brainwashed by my media as you have allowed yourself to easily become when you first saw this clip. I learn by watching Right wing media and adding context that they leave out when building a false narrative by doing independent research. It seems you believe any thing your media spins that fits your narrative. The Right wing media has been lying about immigration at the southern border for decades, That's why this comment section and many speaking on the same subject are full of comments from people who are completely clueless yet talk as if they know the facts.
    1
  305.  @pugowner1347  No I don't rely on them at all. I read the Right wing propaganda and then I fill in the missing context by looking at source information. You have me confused with yourself.
    1
  306. He's not right he's defending a Trump policy and twisting the truth.
    1
  307.  @josefincastelar1081  violating 1325 for the first time is a misdemeanor with a civil penalty. There should be no arrest or separations regardless if they are seeking asylum or not.
    1
  308. If you think she is wrong and he is telling the truth. Than you clearly don't have a clue what our immigration laws are and you are easily manipulated by Right wing propaganda. Learn the word asylum.
    1
  309. No she didn't care for an answer that is twisting the fact of what the law states. He's rattling off a statute that does not apply to asylum. He is protecting a policy not the law.
    1
  310. She was graduated with honors. She is also correct. Asylum is legal. Trumps policy that Homan is defending was in violation of US immigration law. Nice attempt at trying to know the facts, sorry no trophy.
    1
  311. No what you emotionally assume is fact and law. He lied, read the law.
    1
  312.  @thizz707gr  Asylum seekers are not required to use a port of entry. And even if they are not asylum seekers. It's still only a civil penalty. So it's not like arresting and separating a drink driver from their children. It's more like being pulled over for driving the speed limit, as asylum is legal. And being arrested and having your child taken, in an effort to keep other drivers from speeding. That's what his policy was, a deterrent to immigration.
    1
  313.  @thizz707gr  what part of my last statement did you not understand? You can't just decide that a legal act is illegal and start arresting people and separating as a deterrent. Read the law or continue in your willful ignorance of the facts.
    1
  314.  @thizz707gr  §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
  315. What's scarier are all the morons commenting who think she is wrong.
    1
  316.  @treetoppa8388  She is quite qualified considering what the Right has to offer in Congress. Point is she is correct and no one on the Right in this comment section seems to have a clue what our laws immigration laws are.
    1
  317.  @treetoppa8388  I understand the law just fine. I'm the only one of the two of us who has read it. A term you and your Righty friends need to learn is ASYLUM. The Trump administration did nothing but reduce and restrict legal immigration, in their war on immigration. Asylum is legal immigration. They can legally cross between check points and request asylum. Trumps policy of charging asylum seekers with a crime and separating their children was a violation if US law. Maybe you should do your research and learn the law instead of acting like you know something when we both know you don't.
    1
  318.  @treetoppa8388  Obama was not violated US law. Obama didn't snatch children from parents as a deterrent to immigration. Obama had a reduction in border crossings throughout his 7 years to the lowest point in 50 years. Trumps policies doubled that number in 2 years. The Right gas no clue about the border.
    1
  319. She clearly does and you don't, try reading it. Us code 1158.
    1
  320.  @MichaelConferPhoto  nothing wrong with the code. Need to change the news channel. The code was working just fine before the Right decided that the border was out of control, when actually border crossings were at the lowest point in 50 years after a 17 year decline. Then Trump policies came and the number of people crossing doubled by 2019.
    1
  321. The only problem was Trumps policies. Southern border crossings were in decline for 17 years prior to Trump.
    1
  322. Because as an asylum seeker they would not be illegal. 1325 does not apply to them asylum falls under 1158. Homan knows this, but he is defending a Trump policy and not the law. That policy violated US immigration law on treatment of asylum seekers and was removed in federal court. AOC is correct.
    1
  323. You have no idea what you are talking about. She is correct Asylum is legal. Trumps policy that Homan is defending was in violation of US law. That policy was removed in federal court. It was not only illegal it was extremely immoral and shows the true Trump party. Ignorant of the law and immoral supporters of a policy that snatched children away from legal asylum seekers as a deterrent to immigration in Trumps effort to pander to the Right wing base.
    1
  324. It's amazing that so many on the Right think she is wrong.
    1
  325. And the Right has shown clear proof that they don't have a clue what our immigration laws are and they are easily manipulated by propaganda. AOC is correct and Homan us twisting the facts
    1
  326. Because she does know the law and the Right does not. Homan was not applying the law, he's twisting it to defend Trumps zero tolerance policy that was in violation of the law. They were not in breach of the law, because asylum seekers are legally able to cross between check points and request asylum. The Right needs to grasp the understanding of the definition and difference between asylum, refugee, migrant, and immigrant. Some on those have legal protections the others do not, there are exceptions to laws and they are not always consistent.
    1
  327.  @bijackson1956  I understand that is the narrative the Right believes, but it is not the law that's just guessing that you are correct. Asylum has to be requested on US soil. It can not be requested at an embassy or consulate there is no application process prior to the verbal request at the border. Asylum seekers are not required to use a port of entry and there is no penalty for those crossing a border of a safe haven country. That is article 31 of the Geneva Convention that later became structure of our INA laws that include US code 1325, as Homan recited, and code 1158 that covers asylum. A federal court already reversed this policy as it violated both the law and treaty. I can provide the answer in that court decision.
    1
  328.  @bijackson1956  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  329.  @bijackson1956  As I said it's asylum, point of entry is irrelevant, regardless of your opinion. No one said anything about entering the country and being granted residency that's not how the process works. Biden does not have to make an executive decision to allow asylum seekers to stay, Congress has already written laws and they are now being followed. Why would I go to another country to ask for asylum if I don't qualify? Maybe you should get a grasp of the subject matter instead of trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.
    1
  330.  @bijackson1956  That's irrelevant to the law. If they don't qualify they are deported. They still can legally cross the border seek out an agent an request asylum. The vetting comes next. It still does not require criminal charges and separations for a crime that for the first offence carries a civil penalty. But yeah I've read 1325 a few times as I said asylum is exempt. Code 1325 comes from the 1980 INA laws. Along with code 1158, that one has to do with asylum. Have you read it yet?
    1
  331.  @bijackson1956  well yes they can. our laws, treaty, and courts say they can. Only in the false reality you are living in is it an issue. The only ones ever talking about open borders is in the Rights wing talking points with no evidence to support their bull sh it. Same with your voter claim.
    1
  332. Wrong. The reason they were separated was due to a policy of deterrence that was in violation of the law. Asylum is legal and should never be separated for crossing the border and requesting asylum.
    1
  333.  @alfredoflores6566  I have no problem with your description if Flores. It does not apply to the conversation of ASYLUM seekers that do not have to use a port of entry to request asylum. Trumps use of his zero tolerance policy on Asylum seekers is a violation of US code 1158. 1325, for the first offense for non asylum seekers is a civil penalty. And prior to Trumps zero tolerance, this meant families were always detained and then deported together. After Trump wrote an executive order to have his policy removed (also not necessary), he also stopped charging families with a crime and separating. No laws were changed.
    1
  334.  @alfredoflores6566  one more good reason to remove Trumps remain in Mexico policy that violated US immigration law and is the cause of this problem. None of what you said change asylum law. Trafficking is not a new concept and still does not require the separation of children from legal asylum seekers. This was not done to combat trafficking, it was done out of a deterrent to legal immigration. By the way Trumps policies not only made it easier for cartels and traffickers to have access to immigrants, but they also failed to prosecute traffickers in the US as well.
    1
  335.  @alfredoflores6566  if they are requesting asylum then where they cross is irrelevant. That's been law and international treaty for over 40 years. The problem is the Right inability to understand the difference between asylum and someone trying to cross without being seen.
    1
  336.  @alfredoflores6566  I don't remember ever having to prove who my child is with documentation or a DNA test. You really think an officer can't find this information while in the middle of an asylum interview. Nice try at a talking point, but it lacks any critical thinking.
    1
  337.  @alfredoflores6566  §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
  338.  @alfredoflores6566  they and can be better, none if your points are relevant to the law. It is a violation of US law and international treaty to penalize an asylum seeker for crossing the border of a safe haven country. None if you BS and personal feelings matter, it's the law. You don't get to have your dictator change that just because you buy into the Right wing rhetoric.
    1
  339. ​ @alfredoflores6566  No that is the narrative the Right is trying to sell. This is why we have laws, so assholes on the Right don't force changes based on the BS they are willing to believe. I'm not talking about everyone, stop being an idiot to try and prove your point. Yes there are those that are not seeking asylum and there are those who have creditable claims. You don't get to decide they are all invalid claims before they get a chance to make the claim. There are rules I'm explaining then to you and you are not listening your just talking out your ass like everyone else on the Right who thinks they no the facts and you don't.
    1
  340.  @alfredoflores6566  do I need to be there to understand the law and the resulting Trumps failed policy? Do I need to be there to look at the data and demographics and fully understand what the problems are and what policies were working and what ones don't? I saw lying Ted and his crew at the border. Manipulating the facts supporting Trumps policies that he knows violate US laws. Yeah you don't have to be there to know what's wrong and how to fix it. You were down there the entire time and your as clueless as the rest of the Right.
    1
  341.  @alfredoflores6566  I also don't have to be there to actually have morals and respect for the law, that the Right seems to be missing.
    1
  342.  @alfredoflores6566  The weaker policy saw a 17 year decline in border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. This while the Right was screaming about a need for a wall and thinking immigration was out of control. By Trumps second year and policies in place we saw the number of people crossing the border double by 2019 to 977,000 for the year. 2020 was an outlier, covid and title 42 kept numbers down until October of last year when they began to spike. With the proper laws back in place,we will be back on track with lowering border crossings again, but that will have to be after the pain of Trumps failed policies. I'm guessing you don't know any of this data, just as you don't know the law.
    1
  343.  @alfredoflores6566  Yes lack of morals for defending a policy that was a violation of the law that snatched children away from their parents. A policy that has not existed for two years, as it was removed by federal courts.
    1
  344. Problem is the " conservative" is so clueless, they don't know what the truth is and the lie. Truth is asylum is legal and they have a legal right to cross between check points and request asylum. That's been law and international treaty for over 40 years. The truth is this is propaganda and the Right will never question it's own media.
    1
  345. You're right as the law he quoted had nothing to do with asylum.
    1
  346. There is no such thing as illegal asylum.
    1
  347.  @Yessentuki4  not how our asylum laws work. Try learning the law. I get it you all hate the immigrants
    1
  348. Asylum seekers fall under US code 1158. US code 1325 does not apply if they are requesting asylum. All they have to do is be on US soil to request, point of entry is irrelevant.
    1
  349. You mean when she stated a fact that Asylum is legal.
    1
  350.  @khvostov7g-0x17  no that is not what was happening and no that is not what he was trying to claim. And no that was not what the policy was doing. Nice guess.
    1
  351.  @khvostov7g-0x17  Homan was arguing that if asylum seeker cross between check points they are illegal and should be charged with a crime and separated. That is what the policy was created to do and it violated immigration law.
    1
  352.  @khvostov7g-0x17  trafficking is not new issue we have delt with it for years without violated immigration law on the treatment of asylum seekers or separations. This policy has nothing to do with combating trafficking. It's about deterring legal immigration. Trumps administration has a terrible record on combating trafficking, that's a Google click away. This policy use on asylees was reversed by federal courts and then Trump lost on appeal. Following that Trump removed the separation policy not just on asylum seekers, but all families crossing between check points. He did it without passing a law. That in itself proves Homan is a liar. Asylum seekers are exempt from US code 1325. There is no penalty for asylum seekers entering a safe haven country if they seek out an agent.
    1
  353.  @khvostov7g-0x17  Trumps attempt on being tough on legal and illegal immigration failed. We had a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, before Trumps policies. By 2019 the number of people crossing doubled to 977,000 for the year. 2020 had covid and title 42 and still was higher that year then the 50 year low. It's not about being stricter, it's about using laws and policies that were working. But the idea that immigration was in decline didn't sell on Right wing medias ability to use fear as control.
    1
  354. It's called ASYLUM learn the law.
    1
  355.  @Stephen2846  yes that is international treaty, but is it US law. In both the US would need to have a treaty with Mexico, as we do with Canada, that shows that Mexico can provide a safe haven for those asylum seekers. We don't have that. That is one of two reasons that policy was reversed by a Trump appointed judge. Did you know that? I'm bright enough to already know everything you can come up with.
    1
  356.  @Stephen2846  as I said clearly that third country policy does not apply here.
    1
  357. She is correct the ICE director is twisting the facts. This is a Right wing propaganda clip edited down and played for people who have no idea what our laws are. Asylum.8s legal and do not have to use a port if entry. Read US code 1158.
    1
  358. Why she was correct about everything she said? What lesson was learned, not to rely on Homan to be truthful?
    1
  359. Should be named How easy it is to manipulate the low inform Right by building a false narrative that she is wrong.
    1
  360. Show any evidence of Dems wanting open borders. The law clearly states that there is no penalty for asylum seekers who cross between check points and request asylum.
    1
  361.  @petercristo992  Yes and in his opinion piece he's just as low informed on details and the law as those here in this comment section.
    1
  362.  @petercristo992  The most significant of these changes was Biden ending the Trump administration “Remain in Mexico” order that kept migrants from rushing the border while they appealed for amnesty status. That is factually and contextually wrong.
    1
  363.  @petercristo992  As with most media reports on the border there is no discussion on immigration law or the fact that federal courts had reversed those policies. There is no observation of actual border apprehensions in a time line. He's drawing a conclusion with partial facts and no data.
    1
  364. No it doesn't, as you can only request asylum on US soil and if someone is sneaking in to avoid detection then they are not asylum seekers. There is a difference.
    1
  365. She was correct. Homan is full of crap.
    1
  366. It was a violation of US immigration law and extremely immoral.
    1
  367.  @andromedahearme63  8 US code 1158.
    1
  368.  @andromedahearme63  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  369. Because she is educated and smarter than the commenters in here on the Right who are clueless on our laws .
    1
  370. Roo bad the Right is too low informed to know she is correct. How does the childish mind of a Trump supporter not know aaylum is legal?
    1
  371. Because this is a propaganda clip that cuts and edits to fit a false narrative. And she made the facts clear. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for crossing a safe haven country. This is common knowledge to many.
    1
  372. She is correct ASYLUM is legal. They are not required to use a port of entry by US law and international treaty. Although she never makes that claim. Makes me sigh too when I see how many on the Right don't know the law.
    1
  373. Because asylum is legal, we don't separate children from parents that have not committed a crime.
    1
  374.  @Riverside360  Trumps policy that Homan is defending is not the law. That is what makes it so immoral. These are asylum seekers. It is perfectly legal to cross our border and request asylum without penalty. This policy was a violation of US immigration law and international treaty. It is also immoral to separate non asylum seeking families who are crossing for the first time. As that is a civil penalty and only requires deportation. This policy was designed as a deterrent to immigration and not due to demands of the law. It is wrong it is immoral it is illegal and that policy stopped prior to Trump leaving office, due to those reasons.
    1
  375. Well you've shown that one you have no idea what you're talking about or what the law states. "LEARN THE LAWS , LEARN BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTHS TO TALK SHIT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR GROWN ADULTS" you should take your own advice.
    1
  376.  @nycwastemanagment2741  im not a fan of AOC. But less of a fan of Right Wing lies. She was correct and Homan was twisting the facts. That's all easy to prove.
    1
  377.  @nycwastemanagment2741  They can't seek out asylum from their own country and you can't get a visa for asylum, that's not how asylum works. Stop assuming you know asylum law when you clearly do not. There is no illegal way of seeking just asylum. To seek asylum all you have to do is be on US soil and request it. There is no penalty for crossing the border. That's international treaty and incorporated into our INA laws for over 40 years. The vetting and verification process comes later. If they don't qualified they are put in deportation proceedings. Regardless of your argument, that does not reflect the law, it still does not excuse the arrest with out due process and the separation of children asylum seeker. US code 1325 is a federal misdemeanor with a civil penalty for first time offenders. Separations for that infraction didn't happen prior to Trump and the separation policy was removed under Trump.
    1
  378.  @nycwastemanagment2741  you are confusing the word immigration from asylum. Like I said you do not know what you are talking about.
    1
  379.  @nycwastemanagment2741  no they are seeking asylum the idea is to come and be caught. That's how asylum works.
    1
  380.  @nycwastemanagment2741  if I was needing asylum I would cross between check points and seek out an agent. It's the best way to get in front if an asylum agent (not the same as border patrol) to qualify for a hearing. Then I can get a creditable fear interview. I would have a better chance to get legal representation and increase my chances of my asylum claim being accepted. Check ponts have daily quotas and turn away asylum seekers. Under Trumps remain in Mexico policy that also violated immigration law, I would have to wait for my hearing in Mexico with little or no ability to speak with legal council or be notified up a court date. Not to mention that I would be at easier access to cartels and traffickers, under this Trump policy.
    1
  381.  @nycwastemanagment2741  https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal-cross-us-border-seek-asylum
    1
  382.  @nycwastemanagment2741  Yep and it's belief in all that Right wing brainwashing that got you to believe you knew asylum law. If you're going to bitch about a topic learn some facts outside of the propaganda bubble. You say you now understand that you were wrong about asylum, but your still conflating that with other anti-immigration Right wing talking points, that are just as manipulative as this clip. We had laws that were working to reduce immigration. We were at a 17 year decline to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trumps policies. He doubled that in two years, one he put those policies in place. All while the right wing media was reporting how Obama was soft on immigration.
    1
  383. No she's not she is completely correct. This policy was immoral and illegal. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for asylum seekers crossing between check points requesting asylum.
    1
  384.  @boilerboiler409  you mean like the socialist stimulus spending signed into law that grew the deficit from 666 billion under Obama to 3.5 trillion under Trump? The same socialist stimulus signed into law by a Republican majority in the Senate.
    1
  385.  @boilerboiler409  sure would love to talk about deficits and debt under Obama. Debt is created by annual deficits and interest. The federal governments fiscal year end is on 9/30. That means every Presidents budget goes from the beginning of October to the end of September if the next year. This means that when a new President takes office the first year is under the previous administration budget. Obama was gifted a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit in his first year and reduced it to 666 billion under his last budget. Republicans decided to make Obama responsible for the debt left by not only that deficit, but from every program created before Obama took office. If you were an informed voter and not a Trump supporter you would know that a President can only be responsible for legislation he signed into law. Through policies he created Obama only increase the debt by about 3 trillion. Most of this would be tax cuts and military spending. Just as Trumps tax cuts doubled the deficit form 666 billion to 1.5 trillion, in 2019 before covid. Is this the discussion you wanted?
    1
  386.  @boilerboiler409  see not only are you completely low informed on the context of the facts at the border, but in the economy too. Did you have any other defections that you've been misinformed by your media and wanted to clear up? Show me something that added to the debt that Republicans in Congress have not supported or voter for.
    1
  387.  @boilerboiler409  And if you are asking how Obama and Trump had tax cuts, but only Obama had deficit reduction. It's due to the fact Obama. Did not give the super rich and large corporations tax cuts Trump did. This is why I talk about deficits and not just debt as you do, it leaves out the context that the Right doesn't want to hear.
    1
  388.  @boilerboiler409  was it, how much has Obama care added to the debt? Was it 20 trillion or closer to zero?
    1
  389.  @boilerboiler409  please explain how a sitting president can veto a law passed by a previous administration without going through Congress.
    1
  390.  @boilerboiler409  not when new taxes are created keep trying. Nothing you said sounds intelligent or with in realty, but it's entertaining. Remember that word reality?
    1
  391.  @boilerboiler409  hey I'm Obama I know that Congress and Bush just passed a bail out, but it's going to add to the debt the Republicans are going to blame me for so I'm creating an executive order stopping all previous spending because I have the power to do that. Is that what is going on in your head?
    1
  392. Maybe you should think through the problem. She is correct, asylum is legal. It's been legal for over 5 decades.
    1
  393.  @Ryvaken  your mistake was listening and being easily manipulated by a highly edited propaganda that is building a false narrative. The entire 4 hour hearing was on asylum and the asylum laws were made clear prior to the edited clip. AOC was 100% correct she gets an A, while you on the other hand failed miserably. Trumps policy was a deterrent to legal immigration. It was removed in federal court and through Trumps own exectutive order after he lost in appeal. You should go do some homework.
    1
  394.  @Ryvaken  illegal immigration increased under Trump I think that's all that matters to Americans. Broad support would be changing a law through Congress and not unilateral change to a 40 year old law to pander to Right wing individuals that support immoral policies that degrade our humanity and our long held laws.
    1
  395. Kind of like explaining immigration law to a Trump supporter.
    1
  396. "AOC lied about the women drinking from toilets, cried about the conditions at the detention centers" How do you now she lied? She was repeating a claim from an immigrant that was told to several people. They were at the center and there was no running drinking water and so the only source would be bottled. Is it hard to imagine that a guard told a migrant to drink from a toilet if they had asked for water? Or is that too much for your narrative to allow? Yes she voted no on the aid package along with 4 Republicans and 36 other members that did not vote at all on the bill. She voted no because it did not go far enough. There is no evidence I see of any tax fraud by her. Her committing campaign finance violations, was fake news and no evidence has shown any of it to be true. You know innocent until proven... lol, until the narrative on the far Right gets created. Yes she is correct here too asylum is legal and they are not required to use a port of entry. Stop believing every far right wing propaganda clip you see and take 30 seconds to prove them wrong and you'll be better informed and less full of hate and ignorance.
    1
  397. Nope. You bought into the propaganda. The conversation was about asylum seekers. They are legal and are not required to use a port of entry. That's US law and international treaty. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention. Homan is defending a Trump policy that violated US immigration law. This highly edited clip cut off the explanation of the law, that came just where this clip begins. She already knew the answer to her question and gave him an chance to explain it, he danced around the question.
    1
  398.  @sebastiangralian527  Um, no I'm pointing out the fact the Right doesn't have a clue what they are talking about and they are easily manipulated by their own media, this clip is a good example of how easy it is to do that. The Right has been clueless on the border for decades and continue to be willfully ignorant of what's happening.
    1
  399.  @sebastiangralian527  well I've read the treaty that covers asylum. I've read the law that covers asylum. I've heard the testimony of experts on immigration law. I've read the court transcripts on the reversal of this policy. I've read the transcripts of the appeals court that denied the appeal. And I've read Trumps Executive Order that reversed his separation policy. Have you read any of those?
    1
  400. Because asylum is legal and they can legally cross between check points without penalty. That's been law and treaty for over 40 years.
    1
  401. That's not happening by the Biden administration so there isn't a problem at all.
    1
  402. Hi sure I will. She is completely correct. The Right is completely clueless on immigration law. Homan is twisting the facts to fit a false narrative to defend a trump policy and not the law. That policy was in violation of the law and was removed in federal court. This is called civilian oversight of your dictator.
    1
  403. 8 U.S. Code § 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
  404. The Right has a hard on for AOC.
    1
  405. It's asylum there is no illegal entry.
    1
  406. Ask your parents maybe they understand asylum laws we've had them for 40 years.
    1
  407. If the Right had a clue what our laws are they would know she us correct. We have strong borders if you would bother to become informed. Dems are not anti border. They are anti Right Wing BS.
    1
  408. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  409. Doesn't work that way if they request asylum, then there is no penalty and no separations. This policy violated immigration law and was stopped.
    1
  410. Good you obviously were too low informed to be a Democrat.
    1
  411. And she is correct. Asylum is legal. Has nothing to do with her feelings it's the law. The Right is ignoring the law.
    1
  412.  Bartholomew  Irrelevant to the law and discussion. Asylum seekers are vetted and verified after the request is made if they are not legitimate they are deported. Still nowhere in the process is there a reason to charge them with a crime and separate. They still have a right to make the request without penalty. What we don't get to do is decide that all of their claims are false before they reach the border to make them, because of political rhetoric and propaganda. Trump doesn't get decide what laws to ignore to pander to is base. "Name one major group fleeing to America that fits this definition legitimately." I don't recall people requesting as a group. Do you know everyone's back story?
    1
  413.  Bartholomew  if they are ignoring the law, they are not asylum seekers. If they are requesting asylum point of entry is irrelevant. Those who use coyotes are typically trying to avoid detection when crossing, and there for would not be requesting asylum. As with most of the Right you seem unable to distinguish between legal asylum seekers who can cross between check points and those trying to avoid detection. Trumps policy as with the rest of the Right doesn't make any distinction it just punished all who crosses regardless of requests and following legal process. Trumps remain in Mexico policy is also in violation of US law, yet it's still in use, until it can be properly removed. Again your comments and opinions are irrelevant and I just don't care. Follow the law.
    1
  414. Homan is a liar and it didn't take any to a to proven him wrong because asylum us legal and that is common knowledge.
    1
  415. She is correct the idiots are those commenting in here who have no clue what the law of facts on immigration.
    1
  416. What's despicable is the Rights continued support of this policy that was not only immoral, but violated asylum laws. AOC is correct read the law.
    1
  417. At least the left knows immigration law. Asylum is legal and there is no penalty for asylum seekers who cross between check points. Homan 8s twisting the facts to protect a Trump policy that was in violation of immigration law. AOC was correct.
    1
  418. The only ones who should be ashamed. Of themselves are those on the Right who ate still defending this immoral policy that violated immigration law and a policy that no longer exist due to its immorality.
    1
  419. It's asylum there us no illegal way read the law.
    1
  420. The Right are brainwashed idiots. She is 100% correct. Homan is twisting the facts and the Right wing media is editing out of context to manipulate their viewers who are clueless in asylum laws.
    1
  421. And she us correct asylum is legal and there us no penalty for asylum seekers to cross and request asylum. Homan is defending a policy on law. That policy was in violation of the law and it was removed.
    1
  422. She is talking about asylum seekers who are legal. And Trumps policy that Homan is defending that violated immigration law by separating asylum seekers and charging them with a crime.
    1
  423. That's why southern border crossings were in decline before Trump. The Rights strong border policy violated US law and it failed.
    1
  424. No in this case she is correct and the left does know better than the misguided Right who eats this propaganda BS like candy. The law is clear and has been clear for over 40 years, ASYLUM is legal, if they seek out a border agent and make the request point of entry is irrelevant.
    1
  425. Wrong
    1
  426. Umm, no It's more like the American Indians that he enslaved, that want to trash the memory.
    1
  427.  @cabininthewoods7326  and why would you give a crap about Columbus, other then just another reason to disagree with the left. It's like the rhetoric is by design to fit a narrative.
    1
  428. No we need the morons on the Right to read and learn the laws and stop watching propaganda clips.
    1
  429.  @keshavleitan7800  Read the law that is common knowledge for the rest of us and you would have a clue. Stop listening to propaganda and you would have a clue. Asylum is a protected status in US law and international treaty for over 40 years. They have a legal right to cross between check points and request asylum. The Right doesn't seem to know the difference between asylum and someone crossing the border to avoid detection. U S code 1158.
    1
  430. She was he just lied and Right wing media edited the clip to manipulate it's viewers who know nothing of immigration law.
    1
  431.  @eduardosaavedra9186  she still is smarter than most of the 24k Right wing commenters to this clip who don't have a clue what our immigration laws are or that asylum is legal and have a separate group of laws that protect them. You guys think everyone coming to the border is just an illegal immigrant and can't tell the difference between refugee, asylee, migrant, or immigrant. I'm no fan of AOC, but she is correct here.
    1
  432.  @justme4510  you have to be on US soil and seek out a border Patrol to make the request. Yes if they are not requesting asylum then they are not asylum seekers. If they later don't qualify then they are deported. It's that simple. No need for criminal charges or separations. And even if they are not seeking asylum there still is no need for criminal charges and separations for a infraction that has a civil penalty.
    1
  433. Asylum seekers can legally cross between check points and request asylum. Trumps policy that Homan is defending violated that law. 8 US code 1158.
    1
  434. And that is exactly what the Right is doing here, ignoring the law or bring completely ignorant of what the law is on immigration.
    1
  435. No it proves how uneducated the Right is and how easily manipulated by Right wing propaganda. AOC is correct, Homan is twisting the truth to fit a false narrative.
    1
  436. That's the funny part she didn't lose the argument. The Right is just clueless on immigration law.
    1
  437. And the ice director and right wing media are taking Advantage of right wing ignorance of immigration law.
    1
  438. She didn't make a fool of herself. She was correct the policy violated immigration law and is no longer in place.
    1
  439. That's is exactly what everyone on the Right is doing in this comment section. She is correct on the law and Homan is lying, but the Right is using their own feeling to assume he's right, because 8ts the narrative you want to believe. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for an asylum seeker to cross the border and requesting asylum. That's been US law and international treaty for over 40 years.
    1
  440. Learn what our asylum laws are.
    1
  441.  @marthamack6319  That's not how the asylum process works and you should know that. War is not the only qualifier for asylum, war would be for a refugee and there are differences. And it does not excuse a policy that charges asylum seekers with a crime and separates their children as a deterrent to an action that is legal. We have a process to vet and verify asylum claims. If they do not qualify they are deported. This still does not excuse snatch children to pander to a voter base that is misinformed on immigration law and what is actually happening at the border. Hard for a legal asylum seeker to make there case when they are denied the rights our laws grant them, but just assuming they are all not qualified to begin with is not a policy. That's the reason the law is there.
    1
  442. Lol, she is correct read the law.
    1
  443. Yep that's what the Right is doing here.
    1
  444.  @jq3814  read the law.
    1
  445. Free speech us not being suppressed. This is called civilian oversight of our government.
    1
  446. 8 U.S. Code § 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
  447. No the Right is completely clueless. Homan is defending a Trump policy not the law. That policy was in violation of US immigration law. Asylum is legal and it doesn't matter where they cross if tgeyvturn themselves into border patrol. Homan is a lying sack of sh it that should be in prison.
    1
  448. Yet she was correct and no one I've spoken to on the Right in the last three years about this subject has a clue what the law states.
    1
  449. Maybe they should have one for Right Wing voters who are clueless about the law and who are easily manipulated by false propaganda. Asylum is legal there is no separation policy anymore because it violated US immigration law.
    1
  450. No. My God, that is what he is doing. Asylum is legal. They do not have to use a port of entry, that has been US law and international treaty for over 40 years. It was the Trump administration deciding to ignore those laws and treat legal asylum seekers as criminals and to separate as a deterrent. Homan is defending that Trump zero tolerance policy and not the law. He did that on several of his policies that violated immigration laws.
    1
  451. She is upholding the law. Trumps policy that Homan is defending was violating asylum law. The Right needs to learn the law and show they are concerned for the law and not the false narrative they want to believe, this would be a much better country.
    1
  452. It's called asylum and it's legal. Read the law.
    1
  453. Who is responsible for the Right wing idiots in this comment section who listen to propaganda and don't have a clue what our immigration laws are?
    1
  454. That was her answer to a response from Homan that was clearly wrong and not what the law states.
    1
  455. Seeking Asylum is NOT a crime, crossing the border illegally IS a crime, crossing the border illegally and requesting asylum is NOT a crime. It's called being exempt. Now that you know your IQ has increased and you are at least as smart as AOC when it comes to asylum, the knowledge the rest of us on the left already had. Now spread that knowledge to the rest of the Right who seem to be clueless on immigration law.
    1
  456.  @m1a1abrams3  the fallacy in your argument is that you have not read the law and you don't know the law. Yet like everyone on the Right you assume you know the law and that it fits your narrative. Read the law, US code 1158. Read the treaty, article 31 of the Geneva Convention. Read the court transcripts that stopped this policy, East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump.
    1
  457.  @m1a1abrams3  well it looks like I already posted the law that clearly states otherwise. Did you read it?
    1
  458. The only thing I left out is that when they cross they have to seek out a border agent, but as that would be common sense to define the action as asylum, I didn't feel it was needing to be said.
    1
  459.  @m1a1abrams3  hi who gives a fuck what you think? Use some logic and read the law then STFU.
    1
  460.  @m1a1abrams3  you assume much and know little.
    1
  461.  @m1a1abrams3  let me know when that argument starts.
    1
  462.  @m1a1abrams3  I begins when you stop acting like an ass and actually have some information to contribute. You are getting the exact responses that you are wanting to hear so stop crying about it.
    1
  463.  @davidwang1326  they were informed of what the law states before she asked the question. The Right wing media cut it out of the clip. Asylum Asylum is legal there is no penalty for an asylum seeker who crosses a border if a safe haven country.
    1
  464.  @davidwang1326  asylum does not fall under US code 1325. Read US code 1158. At tgat point if you still don't understand start over because you don't know WTF you are talking about
    1
  465. She does know the law. The law was made clear just before the question to Homan, but this propaganda clip cut it out. Asylum is legal and they are not required to use a port of entry.
    1
  466. You guys are idiots. He's not the attorney general. She is not in charge , but it is her job to ask him questions it's call civilian oversight. And she is correct, aaylum is legal there is no penalty for crossing the border and requesting asylum. Homan is twisting the truth to protect Trumps zero tolerance policy not the law. That policy was in violation of the law.
    1
  467. Wrong conclusion she was right, no age does not matter.
    1
  468. You're half right. She asked him about asylum. That analogy is like saying you are separating a child because you're diving 50 in a 55. It's perfectly legal to cross between check points and request asylum without penalty.
    1
  469. No it's what happens when the Right acts as if they know the law yet are completely clueless on the understanding of asylum law.
    1
  470. Try reading the law or a court transcript, because none of you have a clue what you are talking about
    1
  471.  @andrewjones5717  start with article 31 of the 1958 Geneva convention. Then us code 8 1158 of the 1980 INA laws. Then the court transcripts from East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. That was the federal case that stopped the separation policy on asylum seekers. There is no penalty for crossing a border of a safe haven country And requesting asylum. I will add the court decision for you.
    1
  472.  @andrewjones5717  "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
  473.  @andrewjones5717  what happens is exactly what I put in my comment that you didn't read. There is an international treaty and US law on the treatment of ASYLUM seekers. The Right seems to be clueless on the difference of asylum and migrant. So yes just like in the US they can cross into a safe haven country and request asylum without penalty. You might have not noticed, but many of the people coming to our border already crossed several borders to get here without penalty. Ignoring the facts you don't want to accept doesn't change the law.
    1
  474.  @andrewjones5717  not sure where you think you heard her say that, not that its relevant anyway. And no your link is to a far right wing propaganda sight that is even worse then the site that published this BS. It was completely wrong. You need to do some independent research of the actual data and not believing every Right wing lie that fits your narrative. The facts and law was presented to you 2 weeks ago and you continue to be willfully ignorant.
    1
  475.  @andrewjones5717  The link you sent shows just how easily manipulated the Right is. The guy in your clip is not explaining the fact that ASYLUM is legal and there us no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. He is trying to manipulate the Right just as the rest of Right wing media that asylum is not a protected status and it is. This Trump policy no longer exist as was explained to you 2 weeks ago. Learn to read and take your head out if your ass.
    1
  476. Unless you are exempt if the law, like asylum seekers.
    1
  477. Nor if you are requesting asylum.
    1
  478. Or even better have a clue what you are talking about. First it's waste, but I hate spelling Nazi's. None of them are in the Senate. Typically they do not run other political party members against an incumbent candidates, and if their was a primary election most all states only allow party affiliated to vote for that party. I'm unaffiliated I can only vote in a general election. Also AOC is correct and the Right is clueless on immigration law.
    1
  479. The Right is too ignorant if the law to understand she was correct.
    1
  480. Maybe if you can pray for some wisdom and learn what our immigration laws are, she is correct.
    1
  481.  @Ryvaken  no I'm not and neither is she you are drawing a conclusion that is irrelevant at the point of contact. You can't just decide they are all invalid before they reach the border or make the request. They still get to make it. And if they are later found to not qualify they are deported without criminal charges or separations. The law is clear the courts agree and the policy is gone. Why still continue to support and defend a policy that violated the law was extremely immoral and failed to secure the border or reduce illegal immigration. Article 31 is clear as long as you seek out an agent and request asylum there is no penalty for crossing the border of a safe haven country. Stop defending the indefensible just because all you know and understand is to disagree with the left.
    1
  482.  @Ryvaken  as I said you need to do your homework instead of talking out your ads trying to sound infirmed. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  483.  @Ryvaken  have you read 1158 or section 235b1b. Have you read the zero tolerance memo or Trumps executive order to end separations after his court loss. Don't answer we both know you have not.
    1
  484.  @lexioncombine9403  i was adding context illegal doesn't mean criminal charges and separations. It also doesn't include who is excepmt from the statute. Just didn't want the stupidity of your statement to keep you willfully ignorant of the actual law and facts.
    1
  485.  @lexioncombine9403  its not a crime if they request asylum. Asylum is legal. Placing criminal charges and separations for violating 1325 is not like arresting someone for a DUII it's like arresting someone and separating for driving 70 in a 65 mph zone. And as a comparison with an asylum seekers it's like being arrested for driving 65 in a 65. Does that dumbing it down enough fot you to get it.
    1
  486.  @lexioncombine9403  yes ignorance is fun for the Right that's why you are so willfully able to except it.
    1
  487.  @lexioncombine9403  If it's illegal as you claim then how was that policy completely removed without passing a law?
    1
  488.  @lexioncombine9403  I'm happy for your ability to spell. Should I point out all your typing mistakes, and the lack of autocorrect in your comments?
    1
  489.  @lexioncombine9403  yes moving the goal post is exactly what Trump was doing with his policy. What is being discussed is Trumps policy that is violating immigration law. Those crossing between check points and requesting asylum are perfectly legal and they have for over 40 years. Read the law and stop assuming you know it, because you don't. And even if they are not requesting Asylum the law still does not require criminal charges and separations. We have never had that policy prior to Trump and it lasted for about a year. How thick can you be as I've provided everything you need to find this information on your own. Yet you continue to remain willfully ignorant if the law and facts, as that is the only goal for the Right. Disagree with everything the left says and don't bother about the facts.
    1
  490.  @lexioncombine9403  that is not at all a fact. That is the narrative you made up.
    1
  491.  @lexioncombine9403  check points are irrelevant to the law. As long as they turn themselves over to a border agent and request asylum. Why don't you bother to look at the asylum law instead of assuming incorrectly. There are illegal border crossers that want to avoid Border Patrol, and there are asylum seekers. Two different groups under two separate rules. Asylum is not avoiding check points if they are turning themselves over to Border Patrol. This is how the law has worked for 50 years with the exception of the 1 year under Trump. That is reality, not your feelings on the law.
    1
  492.  @lexioncombine9403  because I know what I'm talking about and you are talking out your ass, acting like you know something.
    1
  493. Probably not, considering the comments from the Right are all about hate, as she is completely correct in the law here.
    1
  494.  @BiteSized-Beasts-m5s  you have to know the difference between asylum and immigration.
    1
  495.  @20carrocks  Homan is a lying sack of sh it. That's my point. There is no penalty for crossing the border between check points and seeking out a border agent and requesting asylum. That has been US law for over 40 years. Homan is protecting a Trump policy and not the law. That policy was separating children from legal asylum seekers as a deterrent. That policy was struck down in federal court as it violated 8 US code 1158 and article 31 of the Geneva Convention. Asylum seekers are exempt from US code 1325. Homan knows that but is twisting the facts to manipulate his answer. He's just rattling off a statute, that doesn't apply. And no it's not a free ride, they still have to pass a vetting process and a credible fear interview. They don't just get to walk in and say here I am and stay.
    1
  496.  @dominicvargas3881  you have no idea what you are talking about. And you are completely wrong. Stop making up facts and actually learn one. For instance asylum is perfectly legal and they are not required to use a port of entry. If you don't already know that for a fact then you don't know anything about immigration and you would be just as low informed and easily manipulated by Right wing media as the rest of the Right in this comment section.
    1
  497.  @dominicvargas3881  it's not her opinion it's the law. Homan is defending a policy that violated the law, he is not defending the law.
    1
  498.  @bobbytog7424  I'm confident because I researched it instead of assuming as you are. The law is clear and irrefutable. Asylum is legal. There is no penalty for asylum seekers to cross between check points and request asylum. Prove me wrong.
    1
  499.  @propersod2390  And as she said asylum. All you have to do to request asylum, and the only way you can, is be on US soil. If they seek out a border agent and make the request, how they entered is irrelevant.
    1
  500.  @propersod2390  article 31 of the ratified 1958 Geneva Convention and 8 US code 1158 of our INA laws. That's the same set of laws that 1325 came from, but 1158 is on asylum
    1
  501.  @jacobburch8100  John is the only one here who has a clue what the law is. There is no penalty for crossing the border of a safe haven country. Asylum is exempt from 8 US code 1325. Trumps policy violated a 40 year old US law and international treaty. That's why this policy was struct down in court and no longer exist. Not one of you have read the law, but all claim to know what it is.
    1
  502.  @MrLarockera9  Yeah it's been the law for 50 years, but blame Biden.
    1
  503.  @MrLarockera9  who cares about what immigrants say. We have laws. When Trump took his unilateral deflection from US immigration law that created a bubble that burst before Biden rook office when the surge began last October. Yes Biden did say he was going to follow immigration law that Trump was violating. That would benefit someone wanting to seek legal asylum. Federal courts already reversed Trumps policies that violated asylum laws. Biden is following those mandates. Please explain what Biden can do differently that is not in violation of US immigration law.
    1
  504.  @MrLarockera9  odd how many of the recent reports of national from other countries happened when Trump was President.
    1
  505.  @jennyclark6183  That's not how the law works. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, we don't arrest and separate for a misdemeanor. Asylum seekers have legal protections in US law and international treaty, and there is no penalty for crossing the border between check points if they request asylum. Trumps policy that Homan is defending was in violation of the law and no longer exist. The separation policy has been gone since June of 2018.
    1
  506.  @jennyclark6183  and that's why the Right can't be counted on to make sound logical decisions.
    1
  507.  @jennyclark6183  strange how we had a 17 year decline in border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his policies. Was Trump working in the Dems favor when the number of people crossing doubled under Trump by 2019? You might want to do some independent research and learn a few facts before making claims.
    1
  508.  @jennyclark6183  That's why the right fails. You want absolute perfection to the point that you fail to make any progress at reduction. And what did you get, an increase in border crossings? That is true with many of the Rights platforms.
    1
  509.  @rydogxyz  you don't seem to have a basic understanding in how the process works. I will answer part of you question with a question. If you are driving on a freeway at the speed limit of 65 and a semi can only go 55, does that mean you are illegal? I think you need to read on how the process works and use some critical thinking
    1
  510.  @rydogxyz  you're missing the point because you don't know what you're talking about. The reason for my example was to explain that there are laws that exempt some people depending on circumstances. So your claim that Asylum seekers are still illegal is incorrect, when asylees are exempt from US code 8 1325. Just as you are exempt from having your speed max at 55. Learn the law and how they work.
    1
  511.  @rydogxyz  no one is making that claim. They are not required to use a port of entry, but if they cross between check points they need to seek out a border agent. That is legal for those seeking asylum, but under Trump that was being treated as a crime. That was a violation of immigration law on the part of the Trump administration. Homan is defending that violation, and not the law. This has been proven in court over a year ago before Trump finally removed the policy. And no it's not a fantasy, it's reality. And yes the Right has been shielded from this information from their media and willful ignorance of anything that doesn't fit the narrative. Try looking it up. It's not a secret. The information is easy to find.
    1
  512.  @tulab4295  There is no illegal way to enter if they are requesting asylum, point of entry is irrelevant. 8 US code 1158.
    1
  513.  @MrSpiller24  there is plenty more to say. Yes everything you said is correct. I'm well aware of the vetting and verification process to qualify for asylum. And if they do not qualify they are put into deportation proceedings. That is also completely irrelevant. They still have a legal right under US and international law to cross between check points and seek out an agent to request asylum, without fear of persecution or separations for a clearly legal act. Further more even if that family is not seeking asylum and is caught violating US 1325. For the first offense it's still only a federal misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty and does not require an arrest without due process or separations of their children. This is why the courts stopped the policy and Trump removed it after he lost on appeal.
    1
  514.  @luqmanalatas8418  my god you people like to create narratives in your mind that have no basis in reality. Yes there are many countries in the continent of Asia That take in refugees and asylum seekers. Have you not ever heard of a refugee camp in Asia before? But considering that it's completely irrelevant to what our law states, who the fu ck cares what Asia does?
    1
  515.  @toobored54  that country must also have a treaty with that country, in this case US and Mexico, that provided that the first country can provide the safety that a safe haven country like the US can provide. We have that treaty with Canada, but not with Mexico or any South American country. That is why that policy was struck down on court among other procedural issues that ended that policy.
    1
  516.  @luqmanalatas8418  thank you for your lesson in nothing relevant to US law or international treaty on the treatment of refugees.
    1
  517.  @luqmanalatas8418  nothing wrong with the security of our borders. Problem is people like you who do not understand the asylum process and the law or International treaty that many Asian countries are a part of as well. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, what Asian countries are not part of it?
    1
  518.  @luqmanalatas8418  no, I've seen maps of what countries are signatories to specific parts of the convention. Asia is has quite a few countries. And like Mexico, who are part of the convention, but don't offer the protection that countries like the US are able to provide. We also have our own laws on Asylum.
    1
  519.  @luqmanalatas8418  It's not a problem if managed correctly. As it had prior to Trump.
    1
  520.  @luqmanalatas8418  I'd rather be slipping than be China. Thanks I'm good with our policy.
    1
  521.  @luqmanalatas8418  is that English? Tell me what the law says again and who makes the laws? It was the departure from those laws that caused an increase in immigration. As border crossing increases after Trump took over.
    1
  522.  @luqmanalatas8418  No it's not a problem I just couldn't understand what you are ranting about because it make s no sense. I tried to explain what the law states because that is all that matters your opinion of the law does not. And yes stupid, if you had a clue what you were talking about you would know apprehensions increased after Trumps policies went into effect. We had a 17 year decline in southern border apprehensions to the lowest number in 50 years before Trump took office. By 2019 the number double under his policy to 977,000 that year. Not only did immigration increase, but his policies violated our INA laws. He was separating children from legal asylum families as a deterrent to immigration. That is an illegal policy and immoral policy, but the Right continues to support it even after it was completely removed in federal court. I'd say go lie somewhere else, but you don't know anything about the border issue or immigration law to even lie about, so go read something a learn the law before opening your big mouth and talking out your ass as if you know something.
    1
  523.  @AaronCMounts  the Supreme Court made no ruling in the legality of Remain in Mexico. It just denied the stay of the Texas order. That order only ruled on the procedure in how the policy was improperly removed. The policy is still a violation of the law. US code 1158 clearly states that asylum seekers only need to be on US soil to request asylum and that port of entry is irrelevant. It's also clearly written in article 31 and clear in the court documents that stopped this zero tolerance policy use on Asylum seekers.
    1
  524.  @AaronCMounts    §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
  525.  @AaronCMounts  Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  526.  @AaronCMounts  It does according to treaty, the law, and court decisions. The Right just wants to deny anything that doesn't fit their false narrative. So you will ignore fact supported by evidence, so you can defend your media's propaganda and your pride of once again being completely wrong and the left being completely correct. Your dismissal of the facts just shows a wilful ignorance to hold on to your tribalism. Facts and law matter, your opinion does not.
    1
  527.  @AaronCMounts  the Supreme Court said no such thing. Your making conclusions based on what you want to believe while ignoring the law. You can't just lie and call it reality. Stop defending the indefensible it's just making you more ignorant if the facts.
    1
  528.  @AaronCMounts  here is the court case and judges decision on the legality of Trumps zero tolerance policies on asylum seekers.
    1
  529.  @AaronCMounts  Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  530.  @AaronCMounts  I gave provided plenty of evidence that is irrefutable. You want more. If what you say is law and according to you and Homan required under law, to charge with a crime and separate for the infraction of crossing the border that carries a civil penalty. Then how was Trump able to stop the criminal charges and separations without passing a law, but with an executive order. After Trump lost his appeal he reversed his order on separations. Are you getting the idea that you are clueless yet?
    1
  531.  @AaronCMounts  yes the law is clear once given a creditable fear interview the asylum seeker is to remain in country. 235b1b of US code 1158 of the 1980 INA.
    1
  532.  @AaronCMounts  we have 55/65 speed limit for cars and semi trucks. Do you think police should pull you over for driving your car at 65, charge you with a crime and separate your children to keep semi drivers from driving over 55? That is the criminal issue you can't wrap tour head around.
    1
  533.  @thizz707gr  the facts and evidence are in this thread and not directly at you in a comment. Asylum would be exempt from 8 1325. If you look at the INA laws that both 1325 and 1158 come from you will see that they are in separate sections of the law. 1158 governs the asylum. And let's assume for a minute that asylum seekers are not exempt from 1325. That would mean they committed an infraction that carries a civil penalty and still would not require criminal charges and separations.
    1
  534.  @AaronCMounts  yet we are not talking about, nor is the clip about, immigrants that are avoiding authorities. This is a hearing on asylum seekers. If they are avoiding detection they are not seeking asylum. It is that difference that doesn't seem to get through the thick skulls on the Right. Asylum seekers are not illegal aliens. There is nothing about asylum that is illegal. They do not have to meet requirements to make the request. The validity of there claim comes after when they receive their creditable fear interview. If they do not qualify after that, they are deported without penalty or arrest needing separations. What you and the rest of the Right are suggesting is that we find all of their Asylum claims invalid before they make them.
    1
  535.  @thizz707gr  I did.
    1
  536.  @thizz707gr  the answer is learn the difference between asylum that have specific protections under our laws and international treaty and other immigrants trying to avoid detection when entering. The specifics and details of the law are already posted in this thread.
    1
  537.  @thizz707gr  no there is a difference between asylum who can legally cross the border seek out a border agent and someone crossing to avoid detection. We have laws and treaties that treat asylum as a protected status. If they are NOT seeking asylum and cross in violation of US code 1325, for the first offense it is a civil penalty. So for a family unit they would be detained together and deported together, deportation being the only penalty for non asylum seekers.
    1
  538.  @thizz707gr  so in August we had 208,000 apprehensions on the southern border. 19,000 we're unaccompanied minors, they are automatically by law enrolled in the asylum process. 103,000 were single adults, they are all deported even if requesting asylum as Title 42 is still in place. The cost alone to charge them with a crime and due process would be far to expensive and a waste of time. 86,000 are family units or accompanied minors. Depending on age and current policy. With title 42 some are allowed to claim asylum and others are not.
    1
  539. Problem is too many on the Right that are clueless about the law and believe she was wrong. Asylum is legal there is no penalty for crossing the border if you are requesting asylum.
    1
  540. So you want asylum seekers to go to jail and have their children separated for doing something legal?
    1
  541.  @errwhattheflip  and what does the law say, that i also provided in this comment thread?
    1
  542. Why would she need to? Biden is following immigration laws that Trump was violating with his policies.
    1
  543.  Jason  No she didn't respond back because she knew all he was going to do was lie.
    1
  544.  Jason  Asylum seekers are the exception, they can not be penalized for crossing a border of a safe haven country if they immediately seek out a border agent. Where they cross does not matter. This is more of you using your emotions to think you know the law. 8 US code 1325 for the first offense is a civil penalty, it had never been used alone to separate families at the border prior to Trumps policy. This is all easy to find by reading the law and court transcripts the ended Trumps policy on asylum seekers before he ended the rest of his policy by Executive Order. The problem is the Right doesn't understand the difference between asylum and migrant.
    1
  545. Is asylum legal, yes. Do asylum seekers have to use a port of entry, no. There I simplified it so you can understand.
    1
  546. No it just proves the Right doesn't know immigration law and you are easily manipulated by your media. Now the ignorant Right is blaming Biden for us being sued for this Trump policy that violated the law.
    1
  547. It's called legal Asylum and has been law for 50 years.
    1
  548.  @josefincastelar1081  when seeking asylum point of entry is irrelevant as long as you seek out an agent and make the request.
    1
  549.  @josefincastelar1081  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  550. Zero tolerance was a violation of US immigration law. AOC is 100% correct. Homan is lying to defend a Trump policy and not the law. Read the law US code 1158.
    1
  551.  @Mattball82  zero tolerance was a written policy that she explains included separating anyone entering between check points. This was a deterrent to legal immigration by snatching children from those immigrating legally.
    1
  552. Thank you someone gets it. Not only an immoral policy, but it violated US immigration law.
    1
  553. And that's what we did we removed Trumps immigration policy that violated immigration law. Homan is no longer working in law enforcement to carry out those violation. The Rep was correct.
    1
  554. He is 100% wrong asylum seekers are not required to use a port of entry, he's lying to fit a right-wing narrative and policy not the law.
    1
  555. Yet she is correct while all the Right wing commenters seem to be completely ignorant of our laws and easily manipulated by this false propaganda.
    1
  556. And asylum seeker are not criminals they are legal. That was the problem with Trumps policy, it was in violation of immigration law.
    1
  557. What's shocking is the number of people commenting in here who gave no clue what the law states, because she us correct. The low informed voters are the ones that believed this propaganda message from the Right wing media.
    1
  558.  @davidanders6553  every word she said was correct. Asylum is legal. Homan us twisting the facts by stating a statute that does not apply to asylum. 8 US code 1325 is part of the INA immigration laws. So is 8 US code 1158, that section deals with asylum. It states all anyone has to do is be on US soil to request asylum. That and article 31 of the Geneva Convention that our immigration law was framed to give those treaty agreement legal standing in the US. Federal Courts already reversed this policy that Homan is defending.
    1
  559.  @davidanders6553  how would you know if im wrong, when you think that states have codes or laws on immigration? It purely a federal matter. And the code I'm quoting is a Federal law how would federal law overwrite federal policy. Oh wait that's my fing point, Trump's policy does not overwrite federal law that's why it's in violation. Sorry pal, but you are further from knowing anything then you were in your first comment.
    1
  560.  @davidanders6553  no it's idiots like you who have no clue what you are talking about yet continue to think you do, that has been the problem with this country. Asylum and immigrant are not the same. We have a separate set of laws for asylum seekers. They are not illegal nor is it illegal when they cross the border and request asylum. The law has been in place for over 40 year. And is common knowledge to anyone not on the Right. The issue is right wing media's manipulating facts and the Right not bothering to learn anything, yet believe the propaganda without any evidence and continue to be willfully ignorant.
    1
  561.  @davidanders6553  furthermore if they were not seeking asylum and were in violation of 1325. It's still only a civil penalty and would not require an arrest or separation.
    1
  562.  @jimmyblum8997  Homan was lying anyone who can read the law would know that.
    1
  563.  @jimmyblum8997  The stupid one would be the ones on the Right that believed what Homan was claiming. His years of experience made him a good BS, and manipulating facts that the Right easily consume without checking the facts.
    1
  564. @Trigger Warning you could not be more wrong.
    1
  565. Yet she know immigration law better than the Right wingers commenting in here who don't have a clue what our immigration laws are.
    1
  566. Not much of a fan of AOC, but she is correct and better educated than those on the Right who disagree with her comments here.
    1
  567. She knows the law Homan is twisting the facts and the Right-wing media is spinning false propaganda to its base who are clueless on immigration law. Asylum is legal there is no illegal asylum.
    1
  568. Because he's lying.
    1
  569. You might want to read the law she us 100% correct.
    1
  570.  @Robert-oz9fy  asylum is legal. Asylum seekers fall under US code 1158. Asylum seekers can legally cross between check points and request asylum. That's been US law and international treaty for over 40 years. Homan is defending a Trump policy and not the law. That policy violated US immigration law and international treaty. Read the law.
    1
  571.  @Robert-oz9fy  §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
  572.  @Robert-oz9fy  yean I read part of it. It was B.S. no wonder you deleted it as it had nothing to do with your original statements that were completely wrong. She did know the law and was prepared. She was offering civilian oversight of an administration that was taking unilateral departure of our laws tI appeal to the low informed in his party. You fell for a highly edited propaganda clip, that cut any discussion about the context and facts of the law. The ex ICE director is a lying sack of shit. Federsl courts already found this policy violated immigration laws and removed it. Like I said read the law, because you don't have a clue WTF you are talking about. Your feelings on the issue doesn't matter just as her feelings don't mean shit, but she is correct on the law you ate not.
    1
  573. Yet he lied to protect a policy not the law.
    1
  574. Actually she is correct.its the Right that doesn't have a clue what the law is and it's the Right who are idiots for believing the propaganda without having a clue what they are talking about.
    1
  575. Except she is completely correct. Read the law and not the nonsense the media us spinning.
    1
  576. She is completely correct. The Right does not understand the law.
    1
  577. Thank you seems there are only a few here who have a clue.
    1
  578. Yep
    1
  579. Not if the are requesting asylum. It perfectly legal to cross between check points and request. Homan 8s twisting the facts and this clip is propaganda to manipulate Right wing viewers.
    1
  580. When it's not illegal. Asylum is legal.
    1
  581. 2 year later and the right is still completely ignorant of US immigration law, she was correct.
    1
  582. That's not what asylum is learn the difference.
    1
  583. Here's her smoking gun. 8 U.S. Code § 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
  584. It reinforces the fact that the Right is clueless on immigration law and they are easily manipulated by propaganda. And that the Right has a hard on for AOC.
    1
  585.  @mariod818  except when you have a Trump administration that was reducing and restricting legal asylum. Or they are entering areas where there are no check points near by. Border Patrol placed officers in places where ports of entry are not available so that asylum seekers can approach and the agent will collect a few and call for transportation to a facility. Trump was also forcing asylum seekers that come to a port if entry to remain in Mexico for their hearing. That us a violation of our asylum laws and caused many to cross the border. Keeping in mind this was all pre covid.
    1
  586.  @mariod818  ridiculous to believe otherwise, but that doesn't change the fact that crossing between check points is part of that legal process.
    1
  587.  @mariod818  well I'm the only one of the two of us that knows the law or has read the law. The only thing I agree on is you're to low informed to make an argument and clearly as with most of you are willfully ignorant.
    1
  588.  @mariod818  your the only one here defending an immoral policy that violated the law. Even that coward Trump wouldn't his own policy he lied and blamed Congress when he write an EI to remove the pol icy.
    1
  589.    the law is quit clear once on US soil anyone can request asylum. It doesn't matter how they entered. That request is then vetted. What part don't you understand?
    1
  590.    East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump "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
  591.    I thought we were.
    1
  592.  @tulab4295  it's not hard for me at all I understand perfectly. It's you that doesn't know the law. Asylum is legal.
    1
  593.  @tulab4295  irrelevant to the law, the hearing, and the conversation. Crossing the border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Never before Trump, has that infraction been used to separate children and charge parents with a crime. If they cross between check points and request asylum from an agent that is legal asylum. From that point they are vetted to see if they quality, if not they are deported. No need to charge with a crime and separate. If they are crossing the border in an attempt to avoid detection, that is not asylum and would not be part of the conversation. We don't treat them all as criminals, because of a Right wing assumption that they are all illegal. This policy violated US law on asylum, and that's why the courts stopped it. This policy is immoral and that's why Trump was forced to remove the rest of the policy and why he wouldn't even own it.
    1
  594.  @tulab4295  there is no requirement to go through a port of entry for Asylum seekers and it has no bearing on their legality. It is a violation of international treaty and US law to penalize asylum seekers for crossing our border between check points.
    1
  595.  @tulab4295  if you would like to look at the unedited clip were the law is made clear prior to her questions to Homan, it is available.
    1
  596.  @tulab4295  8 U.S. Code § 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
  597.  @tulab4295  you are, as with most on the Right, confusing asylum with illegal immigration.
    1
  598.  @tulab4295  no I'm saying you probably didn't understand. There is no confusion in my statements. Be specific I made several comments a week ago.
    1
  599.  @tulab4295  "they are not talking about going through the port of entry legally so they are not asylum seekers - as you have said." That is not what I said. I said if they cross the border and are not seeking out a border agent they are not seeking asylum. A Port of entry is not required. Homan under Trumps policy was treating all families with adults crossing between check points including those requesting asylum, it was being done as a deterrent. This is not a hearing or conversation about non asylum seekers who are crossing illegally, try and keep up. This is one of many scenarios at the border.
    1
  600.  @tulab4295  For those crossing between check points and not requesting asylum, those immigrants are in violation of 1325. If it is there first offense and they are not committing any other crimes, 1325 still does not require separations or criminal charges. That only occurred for about 2 years under Trump, when he created the policy and when the courts stopped his policy being used on asylum seekers as it violated US law. After that Trump removed the separation policy on all family units due to public pressure.
    1
  601.  @bigrick7108  not if they are requesting asylum learn the law don't assume.
    1
  602. She was absolutely correct, what does that say about the Right?
    1
  603. No it's the rights of legal asylum seekers. it's about a Trump policy to charge legal immigrants with a crime and child separations for a legal act. It's like having a president create a policy that says if you commit a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty we will arrest you and take your children and the Right way ignorant and compliant. And continue to support the policy after the courts removed this immoral policy.
    1
  604.  @MithProd  that is because the Right does not understand the difference between asylum refugee immigrants and migrants. Your media only teaches you to hate and fear them all. Yes asylum is legal and they are not required to use a check point. Trumps policy that Homan is defending, violated US immigration law. Criminal charges and separations were a deterrent to immigration and not due a law being broken.
    1
  605.  @MithProd  am I supposed to understand that comment?
    1
  606.  @MithProd  I understand your silly rant now. No that's not how the law works you should try learning what it is. Asylum is not illegal immigration no matter how much the Right wants it to be, learn the difference. No one just gets hear and gets to stay. There is a vetting process to qualify. What is immoral is the Right willingness to continue to support an illegal policy to criminalize and separate legal asylum seekers out of complete willful ignorance and due to being so easily manipulated by Right wing media.
    1
  607. Homan was stating law, but not the one that applies to asylum. He's twisting the facts.
    1
  608. Probably from listening to far to much fake news that is making you stupid. AOC is correct maybe listen and look up the facts and the law and you might not feel so stupid.
    1
  609.  @ItsCorri85  and you keep.being willfully ignorant of the laws and facts. While you continue to defend the illegal separation of children from legal asylum seekers.
    1
  610.  @ItsCorri85  yes I've listen to the video and I've seen the unedited clip. I've read the law and the court transcripts that reversed this policy of charging asylum seekers with a crime and separating children. All of the real facts that debunk this propaganda are easy to find. It's been a legal process of asylum for over 40 years and should be common knowledge.
    1
  611.  @ItsCorri85 court transcripts that reversed this policy. East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  612.  @ItsCorri85  Convention relating to the Status of Refugees Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge 1. 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 article 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. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.
    1
  613.  @ItsCorri85  it's clear you are willfully ignorant of the law and the facts. Yes my ability to independenrly search for data and facts in context makes me better informed than just agreeing with propaganda clips edited out of context, because it fits the narrative of hate they fed you in your inability to tell the difference between asylum, refugee, migrant, and immigrant. Yes we have laws learn them so you don't continue to be ignorant of what they are doing to you.
    1
  614.  @ItsCorri85  Stop doing exactly what you are accusing me of, when we both know you are guessing and do not know anything about what you are defending.
    1
  615.  @ItsCorri85  no I assumed by allowing you to look at the law and facts independently you would show an ability to think for yourself and understand and the issue. Unfortunately you are so determined to stick your fingers in your ears and remain willfully ignorant if anything going on at the border. You would rather be a useful idiot and follow the party line like a good brown shirt. Don't you waver one bit, the facts would destroy your fragile narrative of hate and fear.
    1
  616. Hey Right winger guess what she is correct and the Right has no clue what they are talking about.
    1
  617. She is correct and Homan is twisting the facts to defend a Trump policy that violated the law. This is highly edited propaganda to manipulate the Right.
    1
  618.  @EGarrett01  Maybe you should watch the unedited hearing where that was done prior to addressing Homan. The law was made clear before her line of questioning, this propaganda from Right wing media is to manipulate the low informed on the Right who do not know the definition of asylum or what asylum laws are. The penalty of 1325 is a civil penalty there should be no separations, and for asylum seekers they are exempt from 1325 they fall under 8 US code 1158 and article 31 of the 1958 Geneva Convention. There is no penalty for crossing the border of a safe haven country and requesting asylum.
    1
  619.  @EGarrett01  Maybe you should read what I said. This is a highly edited piece of propaganda. The law was made clear in her question to a legal expert on the panel and then addressed Homan's policy recommendation that violated that law. The Right wing media is trying to build a false narrative to manipulate the facts and you are eating it up just as they want you to. It was just seconds earlier made clear, she did address it again by stating the obvious and irrefutable fact that asylum is legal and there is no penalty for crossing the border and requesting asylum. This is common knowledge for those not stuck in a Right wing bubble of misinformation, it took all of 30 seconds to know he was wrong, and the law confirms it.
    1
  620. She was very correct. Asylum is legal.
    1
  621. Don't be conflicted learn the law. Asylum is legal and they can legally cross between check points and request asylum. Homan is defending a Trump policy not the law, 1325 does not apply to asylum they fall under 1158. Trumps administration was separating children from legal asylum seekers as a deterrent. Federal courts stopped this policy as it violated our INA laws.
    1
  622. She knows it perfectly clear, it's the Right the doesn't know the law. US code 1158.
    1
  623.  @keshavleitan7800  if they are requesting asylum point of entry is irrelevant. Read the law.
    1
  624.  @keshavleitan7800  §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
  625.  @sethgowen  learn the law and then STFU. I don't care about right wing opinions based on rhetoric. We have laws follow them or change them the legal way. You don't get to have your wanna be dictator make unilateral decision to change laws to fit his low informed based rhetoric. You all have decided their asylum claims are invalid before they are made. That's why we have laws.
    1
  626.  @errwhattheflip  he sighted a statue that does not apply to twist the facts to defend a policy that violated US law and international treaty. He provided no evidence. I provided evidence and you ignored it.
    1
  627.  @sethgowen  what is an open border policy please describe if you can? We had a 17 year decline in border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, before Trump and his policies. While the Right was screaming for a need of a border wall. After Trumps policies the number of people crossing doubled. In 2019 to 977,000. The only reduction he saw was due to covid and title 42 in 2020. That lasted until about April when numbers began increasing again. By October if 2020 we were on the beginning of the suge that continued to grow into Biden's administration, who is following the law and treaty obligations.
    1
  628.  @sethgowen  the only open border is the Rights ignorance of the law.
    1
  629.  @errwhattheflip  That's typical of the Right putting too much blind faith in law enforcement leadership to be honest. The evidence to disprove him is easy to find and has already been provided in this comment thread and there is plenty more. Article 31 of the Geneva Convention, US code 1158, federal courts transcripts that stopped the use of this policy on asylum seekers, and Trumps own executive order stopping his own policy of separations. I'm always entertained by the Rights need for evidence to debunk Right wing propaganda that has offered no evidence of its own claim, but the Right is willing to accept those false claim without a second thought.
    1
  630.  @errwhattheflip  nothing about the family separation policy or the Rights continued support of it, is moral.
    1
  631.  @errwhattheflip  to fix Homan's equivalency argument. This is like a police officer pulling you over for driving the speed limit. Charging you with a crime and separating your children, to deter other drivers from speeding.
    1
  632.  @errwhattheflip  the part I don't get is that asylum laws are common knowledge. I knew he was lying in the first 30 seconds of the clip. That's why it was so easy to find evidence to his twisting of the facts. How do so many on the Right not know this?
    1
  633.  @errwhattheflip  this had nothing to do with national security. This was a deterrent to legal immigration. National security was doing just fine prior to Trump and his fail border policies, that doubled the number of people crossing the border by his second year in office.
    1
  634.  @errwhattheflip  like many on the Right you seem to be conflating legal asylum seekers with those entering illegally trying to avoid detection. There is a big difference.
    1
  635.  @errwhattheflip  the question you should be asking is why are we charging anyone with a crime and separating children if the only infraction is crossing the border for the first time (non asylum seekers). That only carries a civil penalty. Then ask if they are being charged with a crime, where is the due process? And is it worth it for tax payers to pay for court cost, when all you have to do is deport them. As we have done prior to Trumps separation policy and after he removed it.
    1
  636.  @errwhattheflip  this has nothing to do with national security. As an asylum seekers they still have to seek out a border agent and get screened by an Asylum agent and go through the process you are still conflating that with those trying to avoid detection. They were denying asylum seekers that process for doing what the law says they are allowed to do. What part don't you understand that thinks there is another side to this issue?
    1
  637. BS you guys are clueless and just make shit up.
    1
  638. The law she is speaking of was created in 1980 and through treaty in 1958. She knows exactly what she is talking about. It's the Right who are assuming as none of them seem to know the law. As with most on the Right you don't understand the difference of refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and immigrant. You just see illegal without knowing what is legal.
    1
  639. Because we already have that law it's been in place for over 40 years. Asylum is legal they do not have to use a port of entry. Trumps policy violated US immigration law and international treaty.
    1
  640. With the exception of Trump supporters who think she was wrong.
    1
  641.  @paulcolburn3855  "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
  642.  @paulcolburn3855  you don't have a clue.
    1
  643.  @MrMuaythai84  please explain in the stupidest way possible how legal immigration of asylum seekers is socialism. The socialism argument ended when Republicans and Trump created a 3 trillion dollar deficit with socialist stimulus legislatiin. Learn the law and get a clue of what you're talking about and get back with me.
    1
  644.  @MrMuaythai84  try sticking to the subject matter instead of deflecting into stupidity. I don't care much for AOC, but she is correct here.
    1
  645. And if they request asylum while doing it, then it's legal and they can not be charged with a crime and separated. Trumps policy violated immigration law. That is why courts removed it.
    1
  646.  @oatnoid  Wrong Trump didn't have the border under control. We had a 17 year decline in border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his policies. After Trumps policies, the number of people crossing doubled to 977,000 in 2019. It only went down for a short time in 2020 due to covid and title 42, yet still was higher then the 50 year low. The numbers began to surge again last October when it increased during a historical low month and continued to grow.
    1
  647.  @oatnoid  Wrong. You can not apply for asylum at an embassy or in a foreign country. Asylum seekers must be on US soil. Sneaking in illegally, is not asylum there is a difference. Yes the courts shut down this policy in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Asylum seekers can legally cross between check points, but they must seek out a border agent and request asylum. Trumps policy was in violation of that law.
    1
  648.  @oatnoid  Fix what in the mid term it's 40 year old law and international treaty, the Right was just ignorant of the fact and the difference between legal asylum and immigrants crossing the border trying to avid detection. It's due to your media manipulation the laws instead of teaching them to you.
    1
  649.  @oatnoid  No Trump was handed a southern border that was already under control and destroyed that control with his rhetoric and failed policies that violated immigration law. Your media hid that fact. I already said it was cut in 2020 after it increased in 2019, but that was not due to his policies. Regardless of US embassy designation you still can not apply for asylum at one. The wait in Mexico policy was a violation of US code 8 1158 section 235b1, and it was a major cause of the increase in unaccompanied minors. it left legal asylum seekers in the hands of cartels and traffickers in Mexican border towns. It is the reason why immigrants are being shipped to other towns along the border to be deported and released. That 1,300,000 in "Biden's policy" is the federal government fiscal year beginning 10/01/20. Before Biden took office. In that 1,300,000 67% are single adults and they are all deported under title 42 that is still in place. That number was 86% single adults under the months with Trump. The rest are unaccompanied minors at 9% and the rest are minors with an adult family, those are put through an asylum process if they qualify. This current problem is a carryover of Trumps policies that destroyed a fragile balance at the border that gave us a 17 year decline in border crossings. Biden is following the law. Lol, rinse and repeat everything you just said, because you can only parrot Right wing talking points and propaganda.
    1
  650.  @oatnoid  How many small children were you going to shoot at the border for something that is either legal if they are seeking asylum, or a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense? Show us what Trump supporters are really about.
    1
  651.  @kenkal1829  wrong. We have had a trafficking peoblem for years without the need to charge legal asylum seekers with a crime and separating children. This policy was a deterrent to immigration and was in violation of US immigration law. Trump didn't even want to own it trying to blame everyone for his policy. That was after he he lost the appeal in court trying to keep it in place. This policy had nothing to do with reducing trafficking. And to make the request for asylum they are not required to have any ID. Also we do not have thousands of illegals due to Biden. You don't seem to have a clue what you are tslking about.
    1
  652.  @kenkal1829  Biden did not admit Trumps remain in Mexico policy worked. It's the cause of most of the problems now and it's a violation of immigration law. He was forced to reinstate it due to procedural issue when he tried to remove it. All he has to do is change how he is removing. MPP is a violation of 235b1b if US code 1158. Turn off the Right wing media as it has lied about everything at the border for the last decade.
    1
  653.  @kenkal1829  he was not allowing in thousands illegally. Biden had a lot of unaccompanied minors by US law they are immediately put into the asylum process. The next largest group are single adults. And even if they request asylum they are not admitted as Title 42 is still in effect so they are deported. You will have to get out of your media bubble if you want to know facts and laws, Right wing media isn't offering any.
    1
  654.  @kenkal1829  yes and the ignorant in the Right think that sign a factor is the actual cause of what's happening now, as they are too low informed to know any actual facts, context, and laws. The surge began in October if 2020 look at the data. And the increase in apprehensions that jumped from September to October. And those numbers staying at 20 year record highs for winter months. Yes Biden said I will be following immigration law. And immigrants know the law better than the Right.
    1
  655. No he made the Right in here commenting look stupid. She is 100% correct.
    1
  656. Say a the guy with no clue why the law states. She is correct.
    1
  657. You are so right even Trump wouldn't own it. It's like they had this idea that was going to change the whole system. It blew up in their face and none of them will admit to it.
    1
  658. Wrong why does the Right continue to make up BS claims about the law, when the facts of the law are so easy to find.
    1
  659.  @BUSTRCHERRI  she was right it's easy to prove.
    1
  660.  Rory Welch  is that comment supposed to mean something or is it just another sign of Right wing ignorance of the law.
    1
  661.  Rory Welch  ok your just an ignorant independent that listens and believes far right wing propaganda. Does that fix it for you asshole?
    1
  662.  Rory Welch  No my idea is to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, instead of just assuming they are all illegal like a low informed voter.
    1
  663.  Rory Welch  sure Trumps separation policy of asylum seekers violated 8 US code 1158 and article 31 of the Geneva convention. US code 8 1325 does not apply to asylum seekers, Homan knows this. After Trump lost his court battle and the appeal, he created an executive order to remove his separation policy on any family units crossing between check points. You and the rest of the idiots are defending an illegal and immoral policy that no longer exist and even Trump called immoral, when he blamed the policy he created on everyone else.
    1
  664. That depends on the country they are going through.
    1
  665. HE is lying. There is no such thing as illegal entry if they are requesting asylum. He is not defending the law, he is defending a Trump policy that violated the law. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country.
    1
  666. Gary Morris and other whackos on the Right have ZERO comprehension of the term Asylum in reference to legal immigration. It simple doesn't compute with them that the act of requesting asylum is completely legal and that asylum seekers are not required to use a port of entry. The Right has no idea wtf they are talking about when it comes to immigration law.
    1
  667. LOL she was correct, learn the law.
    1
  668.  @gamer4028  it's because of people like you who assume due to rhetoric and talking points that all asylum claims are invalid before the request is made. Yes there is no penalty for asylum seekers crossing the border of a safe haven country and requesting asylum from an agent. If an immigrant is caught crossing the border and is not requesting asylum, it's still only a civil penalty and does not require criminal charges or separations. This was a policy to deter immigration not the law. It was a policy that violated US code 1158 and article 31 of the Geneva Convention.
    1
  669.  @gamer4028  if the Right had a clue and did any research other then being handed talking points. They would know that border crossings were in a 17 year decline to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his policies that doubled that number to 977,000 by 2019. The only reduction he had was due to covid and title 42 in 2020. The numbers began to surge again in October 4 months prior to Biden.
    1
  670.  @gamer4028  Biden doesn't have a separation policy and is not pressing charges and separating families for the infraction of crossing the border that carries a civil penalty. He sure isn't separating and charging asylum seekers. Yes that's right there is a difference between asylum and immigrant, the Right should learn it and read the law. If there are any separations it's due to drug trafficking or other crimes. But no-one has separated children or passed criminal charges on family units for the infraction of crossing the border with the exception of Trump, for a short period of time before removing his separation policy after it was removed on asylum seekers in federal court.
    1
  671.  @gamer4028  no not 17 years ago 4 years ago. It was a 17 year decline to the lowest point 4 years ago. Biden is correcting back to the law and we are seeing the pain from Trumps other policies that violated immigration law.
    1
  672.  @gamer4028  because asylum is legal. There is no penalty for crossing the border of a safe haven country if you request asylum from a Border Agent. Point of entry is irrelevant to asylum law and treaty. Trump was denying them asylum if they came between check points and charged them with a crime and separated children for an act that carries a civil penalty for non asylum seekers. Trump also violated section 235b1b of US code 1158 by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico after receiving a creditable fear interview. The fact 8s the Right doesn't have a clue what asylum means or what the law is and your media is not trying to teach it, they are manipulating it to build a false narrative the Right will easily consume. The law is clear and irrefutable and has been this way for 50 years.
    1
  673.  @gamer4028  East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump Page 19-21. 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
  674. Except asylum falls under 8 US code 1158. Asylum seekers are not required to use a port of entry, and can legally cross between check points and request asylum. That has been US law and international treaty for decades, Trumps policy violated US law and the courts stopped his policy.
    1
  675. Maybe your friend can teach you what the word asylum means.
    1
  676.  @comfychair4475  The dude was lying and twisting the facts to fit a narrative.
    1
  677.  @ZeranZeran  the Ice director lied and the Right is clueless on the law and facts. She was correct.
    1
  678.  @ZeranZeran  no he and the Right wing media made you look like a fool. Asylum is legal and they do not have to use a port of entry. That law has been the same for over 40 years. Homan is defending a Trump policy and not the law. A policy that was in violation of US immigration law. Biden is following the law.
    1
  679.  @ZeranZeran  that was Trump that made the statement about Robert E Lee and said he wants a boxing match with Biden. Seems you are the laughingstock.
    1
  680.  @Geck_Gxng  You are wrong on both. It's the fact that the Right is clueless on immigration law and only listen to propaganda. The Right doesn't know what the reality is.
    1
  681.  @ZeranZeran  but I do agree with the fact that Trump is a child and unfit for president. That was the purpose of you pointing out those issues was to show a mind that was unfit for office. Good job, I've been saying it for a long time.
    1
  682.  @ZeranZeran  Yeah he's talking about Trumps comment you idiot. How are you the only one stupid enough to believe this?
    1
  683.  @ZeranZeran  it was from a Trump release from 9/08 you can view it in full context online and not have to show once again how completely gullible and ignorant you are. The only one that lie are informed Republicans the rest of you are just stupid. I don't need to lie it's too easy to prove you wrong by just reading.
    1
  684. No that is what the Right is doing. She is correct, read the law.
    1
  685. Yet at least she knows that asylum is legal, while the Right remains completely ignorant of our immigration laws. You guys have shown how easy it is for your media to manipulate you. Stop using your feeling to agree with every Right wing lie that fits your narrative.
    1
  686. Yet she is correct and seems to understand the law better then the commenters on the Right who don't know the law and are easily manipulated by Right wing propaganda. Age has nothing to do with wisdom, the older a person is on the Right the easier it is to manipulate reality.
    1
  687.  @NCVETTEMAN  like I said easy to manipulate. There's a lot of missing context and facts in those talking points. And there is not any evidence to support a couple of them. So we can get to your deflection later. Asylum is legal. It's legal in international treaty and US law. The Right tends to confuse the definition of asylum and immigrant that's why you guys think everyone is illegal. There is no penalty for asylum seekers who cross the border between check points and request asylum. Homan is twisting the facts to defend a Trump policy that violated that law. Federal courts removed this policy.
    1
  688.  @NCVETTEMAN  this hearing was not about a vote this has been law for over 40 years and kinder in international treaty.
    1
  689. Yeah it's hard to explain immigration laws to the Right, their willful ignorance is stronger than their willingness to learn the laws or facts.
    1
  690. I'm curious on how many times the Right has called her out and they have been completely wrong just like they are here. The Right has a hard on for AOC and like to attack her. She was without a doubt correct here and the Right is clueless on the law, and easily manipulated by Right wing media.
    1
  691. No you don't understand the law. She knows it quite clearly.
    1
  692. Considering asylum is perfectly legal and his recommendations were to separate children from a legal aaylum seeker, then yea it's a big deal.
    1
  693. It is legal my God you people need to get a clue. Learn what asylum means. They are protected under 8 US code 1158. It allows them to cross between check points and request asylum without penalty. That's been law for over 40 years. The only one violating the law was Trumps zero tolerance policy the Homan is defending. Aaylum seekers are exempt from 1325. The only one making unilateral decision to ignore our immigration laws was Trump, but the Right is too low informed to know the law. You guess and assume that those laws fit your narrative and they do not.
    1
  694. If you want common sense learn the law and stop listening to propaganda. This is common knowledge. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country if they request asylum. Stop working on the side of those that want to rip this country apart and try being informed.
    1
  695. She is clearly understanding the law and the Right doesn't have a clue what the law states on asylum.
    1
  696. Learn what asylum mean and read the law. Immigrants pay tax and don't benefit from them nor can they vote. Newsom has little to do with it. Immigration is a federal matter.
    1
  697. She is completely correct read the law.
    1
  698. And the Right wing media just misinformed on the border.
    1
  699. What does that say about you? She is correct read the law.
    1
  700. And the Right always sound low informed or they are lying. She is correct and he is twisting the facts.
    1
  701. Wrong completely wrong.
    1
  702.  @matthewdiederich7415  look who's talking. Neither Obama or Biden had a separation policy for legal asylum seekers. Trump is the only president to have one. That policy violated US immigration law on the treatment of asylum seekers and it was removed in federal court. Everyone has a separation policy for adults that break the law. Trump was the only one using it on legal asylum seekers who did not break any law. As for those who are not seeking asylum and cross illegally that is an infraction that carries a civil penalty and no families under Obama or Biden were being separated for that infraction alone. Under Trump they were separated and charged with a crime without due process. Under previous Presidents they were just deported. This is the tip of the iceberg of information on the southern border that your media left out or manipulated to feed a false narrative to the low inform on the Right. And no I did not use MSM to find this information you have to read the law, policies, and court transcripts.
    1
  703.  @matthewdiederich7415  Wrong asylum is a legal process and there is no illegal asylum if you knew the difference between asylum and immigration as your media doesn't teach, you would know this. There is no penalty for crossing a border of a safe haven country and request asylum. The verification and validity of there claim comes later and still does not require criminal charges or separations. The issue was not just the use of caged it was the separation policy under Trump that was causing over crowding and an inability to move into family services care in the legal time limit. You got the propaganda side of the story, but don't have a clue about the context of that propaganda only what the Right wants to spin.
    1
  704.  @matthewdiederich7415  I'm not misinformed at all I watched the press Congress and have read the Trump policy that was put in place in 2018. Why do you guys insist on lying about things that you have no clue about? Stop making shit up in your head and believing that it's reality.
    1
  705.  @matthewdiederich7415  no that is what you are doing. I've already done the independent research. And I know I can prove my claim, you can't.
    1
  706. AOC is following the law Homan is lying. Just as Trump was violating the law and Biden is following the law.
    1
  707. No it's not.
    1
  708.  @dantheman9919  it is when they just make shit up and state it. There's no such thing as illegal asylum.
    1
  709. So does Trump if it wasn't for his policies those asylum seekers would not be on that side of the border after requesting asylum.
    1