Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "Forbes Breaking News"
channel.
-
32
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again, they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removed most authorities under title 8 suspending asylum under 1158 and removing penalties under 1325, and most importantly 1326. Title 42 was being misused to undermines our legal asylum laws and immigrants are placed in expedited removal. With no penalty system in place under title 42, as expedited removal replaced 1325, there was no record of apprehension to use stiffer penalties against those who recrossed under 1326. This has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of repeat returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their news reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40-year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US if they have passed a creditable fer interview, 8 US code 1225. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points, it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard-line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers who use a port of entry and pass a creditable fear interview, to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers and migrant children.
After Biden took office Courts changed the title 42 restrictions to allow unaccompanied minors and family units with children under 4 that are apprehended, are automatically entered into our asylum process. Unaccompanied minors have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps. The increase of unaccompanied minors came after Trumps separation policies and remain in Mexico.
Single adults were still all placed in expedited removal under title 42 until May of 2023. They are responsible for the increased in repeat offenders recrossing under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 was being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify, or be placed in deportation removal if they do not.
Family units entry depended on the title 42 restrictions for children and asylum request and along with how they entered and if they are sponsored. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of immigrants due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 11+year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high, several months before Biden took office, and it has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
6
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Un-Burdened "I only see one of your comments. Title 42 was only for covid, so tell me how, prior to that, illegal immigration was a fraction of what it is now.
Please enlighten me because I work and don't have time to research all of this.
From my understanding, the only way republicans are standing in they way is blocking funding. Rightfully so. We've already spent more under Biden than under Trump.
Your argument does not fall in line with what I'm hearing from Congress.
Sounds more like the political jargon spewed by the press secretary."
The Republican party's goal is to stop what they like to call an open border policy and catch and release. That would be title 8 USC 1158 and 8 USC 1225, the right to cross our border at any point and request asylum and if they can prove to an asylum agent they have a creditable fear of return they are to be detained in the US. this is part of article 31 of the Geneva convention, in our INA laws, and confirmed through out courts. The first step was Trump criminal charges and child seperation policy against immigrants crossing between check points who were in violation of 8 USC 1325. This was a misdomeanor that carried a civil penalty, but the Right needed a bigger deterent to fullfill their goal. That violated 8 USC 1158. Next step was to reduce the ability to be detained in the US, and the use of Remain in Mexico that violated 8 USC1225 to be detained in the US under our protection. Both of thse poilies created in the summer of 2018. By the end of 2019 fiscal year end we were at a record level of those crossing between check points going back to 2006, with Trumps hard line policies only forcing more to cross between check popints ot get their claims heard. This is when the trafficking, Coyotes, and cartels turned things up as it began overwelming border patrol. 2020 and covid stopped alot of the traffick coming over the border and Steve Miller took advantager of political appointees at the CDC to invoke title 42. That pretty much stopped title 8 enforcement including stiffer penalties for immigrants who had already been dined asylum. As time went on the number of peopel crossing munltiple times increased with no penalties under tilte 8 USC 1326. Any one crossing today is processed under title 8 enforcement. Adn while that now gives them a right to asylum request for protections, it takes longer to process legally with a process that was already overwelmed by the Rights dismattling of what was wrorking before Trump. Was this the Rights gaol to cause big government to go bad to force stricter laws to fit their agenda. Biden is following the law. Fund DHS so they can process tham as that is the law, or find a way to fix it in congress without ignorning our constitution and blaming your mess on the left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@russellbuxton737 Because Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border. We also have laws requiring us to take unaccompanied minors. Those are the only two groups allowed legal access to our borders. The rest who do not qualify are put in deportation proceeding, BUT Mexico recently passed a law not allowing the US to deport non Mexican citizens back into Mexico. So anyone illegally crossing and are detained. We have to hold onto until we can find a way to return them to their country of origin. Are you getting the big picture yet? I read somewhere that Biden has reduced that to only asylum seeker in family units that have children 6 and younger the rest are no longer being admitted.
Trumps wait in Mexico policy for asylum seekers that used a port of entry is also in violation of the INA laws and international treaty. They are supposed to remain in country once the process starts, and that's a why they are crossing the border illegally. Because they have a better chance of winning their asylum case on US soil. That policy was also challenged and lost in court and in the appeals court. The appeals court put a stay on the order, because of the virus and Title 42. Title 42 was the only legal thing that helped Trump reduce immigration last year and it's the only thing Biden can use to circumvent those asylum laws. Trump was violating asylum laws prior to covid.
We've had a 17 year decline in southern border crossing. In 2007 we we're around 800,000 apprehensions per year and cut that in have in 10 years to the lowest it's been in 50 years, prior to Trumps policies. Those Trump policies saw use return to 977,000 apprehensions in 2019, it had not been that high in 20 years. Then we had covid and stopped immigration. Then in September of 2020 we were at 58,000 for the month, by October that number was 72,000. That was the beginning of this surge. Apprehensions continued to increase to 78,000, by January. Those period of months are typically over the past decade low immigration months, February is not. And there is usually an uptick this time of year.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes you did. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Transcripts - "In addition to that, there’s about five other major things she’s handling, but I’ve asked her, the VP, today — because she’s the most qualified person to do it — to lead our efforts with Mexico and the Northern Triangle and the countries that help — are going to need help in stemming the movement of so many folks, stemming the migration to our southern border.
And, you know, back when I was Vice President, I got a similar assignment, but one of the things we did was we made sure that we got a bipartisan agreement with Democrats and Republicans to provide over $700 million to the countries in the Northern Triangle to determine the best way to keep people from coming is keep them from wanting to leave.
And the reason why so many people were leaving, we learned, was that not only gang violence and trafficking and cartels, but natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes. And so it’s not like someone sits around a hand-hewnen [sic] — hand-hewn table somewhere in Guatemala and says, “I’ve got a great idea: Let’s sell everything we have, give the money to a coyote, have him take our kids or us to the border of America, take us across, leave us in the desert. We don’t speak the language. Won’t that be fun?”
One of the ways we learned is that if you deal with the problems in country, it benefits everyone. It benefits us, it benefits the people, and it grows the economies there.
Unfortunately, the last administration eliminated that funding — did not engage in it, did not use it — even though there was over $700 million to help get this done. We’re reinstituting that program. And there are — as I said, there are many factors as to why people leave in the first place.
But this is — this is the — the source of one of the reasons why we’ve had such a — before we took office, in the midst of the last administration’s somewhat draconian policies of separating children from their parents, et cetera, what happened was that we — we found that there were a serious spike in the number of people heading to the southern border, even in the midst of that. And as — as Alejandro can tell you, is that was because there were serious natural disasters that occurred in those countries. They were coming north, and we did nothing to do any — much about it.
So this new surge we’re dealing with now started with the last administration, but it’s our responsibility to deal with it humanely and to — and to stop what’s happening.
And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders.
We’re already talking with Mexico about that; she’s already done that. We’re going to be dealing with a full team now that we have to be able to deal with the problem here at home, but also to deal with it now in terms of in country.
And I can think of nobody who — who is better qualified to do this than a former — this is a woman who ran the second-largest attorney general’s office in America — after the U.S. — after the United States Attorney General — in the state of California, and has done a great deal upholding human rights, but also fighting organized crime in the process.
So it’s not her full responsibility and job, but she’s leading the effort because I think the best thing to do is to put someone who, when he or she speaks, they don’t have to wonder about is that where the President is. When she speaks, she speaks for me. Doesn’t have to check with me. She knows what she’s doing, and I hope we can move this along.
But — so, Madam Vice President, thank you. I gave you a tough job, and you’re smiling, but there’s no one better capable of trying to organize this for us.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Mr. President and for having the confidence in me. And there’s no question that this is a challenging situation. As the President has said, there are many factors that lead precedent to leave these countries. And while we are clear that people should not come to the border now, we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes that — that cause people to make the trek, as the President has described, to come here.
And I look forward to engaging in diplomacy with government, with private sector, with civil society, and — and the leaders of each in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and ensure shared prosperity in the region.
We will collaborate with Mexico and other countries throughout the Western hemisphere. And as part of this effort, we expect that we will have collaborative relationships to accomplish the goals the President has and that we share.
I also look forward to working with members of the Congress who, I think, share our perspective on the need to address root causes for the migration that we’ve been seeing. And needless to say, the work will not be easy, but it is important work. It is work that we demand — and the people of our countries, I believe, need — to help stem the tide that we have seen.
So thank you, Mr. President, for your confidence. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you for willing to do it. Now we’re going to get down to business here. And, Ron, who am I turning this over to?"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadbear6614 To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adolfmcduck1265 1325 does not apply to asylum seekers they fall under 1158. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for their illegal entry into a safe haven country.
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nopers369 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Keep in mind while you make a false claim of 5000 a day for 365 days, there is currently no limitations on the number of asylum seekers in our existing laws or statute to close the border and ignore asylum protections. The bipartisan Senate bill set those limits and it's detailed. The House republicans passed all the funding, for Ukraine. There is no reason not to negotiate and compromise on this bill, if border security was the real intention of Republicans. And it is not. I've seen no evidence of it just theatrics fed to people living in a bubble.
‘‘(3) ACTIVATIONS OF AUTHORITY.—
‘'(A) DISCRETIONARY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary may activate the border emergency authority if, during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 4,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day.
B) MANDATORY ACTIVATION.—The Secretary shall activate the border emergency authority if— ‘‘(i) during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days, there is an average of 5,000 or more aliens who are encountered each day; or ‘‘(ii) on any 1 calendar day, a combined total of 8,500 or more aliens are encountered.
‘‘(C) CALCULATION OF ACTIVATION.— ‘‘
(i) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subparagraphs
(A) and (B), the average for the applicable 7-day period shall be calculated using— ‘‘(I) the sum of— ‘‘(aa) the number of encounters that occur between the southwest land border ports of entry of the United States; ‘‘(bb) the number of encounters that occur between the ports of entry along the southern coastal borders; and the number of inadmissible aliens encountered at a southwest land border port of entry as described in subsection (a)(2)(F)(iv); divided by ‘‘(II) 7.
4) LIMITATIONS.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of paragraph (3), the Secretary shall not activate the border emergency authority— ‘‘(i) during the first calendar year after the effective date, for more than 270 calendar days; ‘‘(ii) during the second calendar year after the effective date, for more than 225 days; and ‘‘(iii) during the third calendar year, for more than 180 calendar days.
‘‘(B) IMPLEMENTATION.—When the authority is activated, the Secretary shall implement the authority within 24 hours of such activation.
‘‘(5) SUSPENSIONS OF AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall suspend activation of the border emergency authority, and the procedures under subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), not later than 14 calendar days after the date on which the following occurs, as applicable: ‘‘(A) In the case of an activation under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3), there is during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days an average of less than 75 percent of the encounter level used for activation. ‘‘(B) In the case of an activation under clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (3)(B), there is during a period of 7 consecutive calendar days an average of less than 75 percent of the encounter level described in such clause (i).
‘‘(6) WAIVERS OF ACTIVATION OF AUTHORITY.—
‘‘(A) FIRST CALENDAR YEAR.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3), beginning the first calendar year after the effective date, the Secretary shall only have the authority to activate the border emergency authority for 270 calendar days during the calendar year, provided that— ‘‘(i) for the first 90 calendar days in which any of the requirements of paragraph (3) have been satisfied, the Secretary shall be required to activate such authority; ‘‘(ii) for the remaining 180 days that the authority is available in the calendar year, the Secretary may, in the sole, unreviewable, and exclusive discretion of the Secretary, determine whether to activate the requirements of the border emergency authority under paragraph (3)(B) until the number of days that the authority has not been activated is equal to the number of days left in the calendar year; and ‘‘(iii) when the number of calendar days remaining in the calendar year is equal to the number of days that the authority has not been activated, the Secretary shall be required to activate the border emergency authority for the remainder of the calendar year on days during which the requirements of paragraph (3)(B) have been satisfied.
‘‘(B) SECOND CALENDAR YEAR.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3), beginning the second calendar year after the effective date, the Secretary shall only have the authority to activate the border emergency authority for 225 calendar days during the calendar year, provided that— ‘‘(i) during the first 75 calendar days during which any of the requirements of paragraph (3) have been satisfied, the Secretary shall be required to activate the authority; ‘‘(ii) for the remaining 150 days that the authority is available in the calendar year, the Secretary may, in the sole, unreviewable, and exclusive discretion of the Secretary, determine whether to activate the requirements of the border emergency authority under paragraph (3)(B) until the number of days that the authority has not been activated is equal to the number of days left in the calendar year; and ‘‘(iii) when the number of calendar days remaining in the calendar year is equal to the number of days that the authority has not been activated, the Secretary shall be required to activate the border emergency authority for the remainder of the calendar year on days during which the requirements of paragraph (3)(B) have been satisfied.
‘‘(C) THIRD CALENDAR YEAR.—Notwithstanding paragraph (3), beginning the third calendar year after the effective date, the Secretary shall only have the authority to activate the border emergency authority for 180 calendar days during the calendar year, provided that— ‘‘(i) during the first 60 calendar days during which any of the requirements of paragraph (3) have been satisfied, the Secretary shall be required to activate the authority; ‘‘(ii) for the remaining 120 days that the authority is available in each calendar year, the Secretary may, in the sole, unreviewable, and exclusive discretion of the Secretary, determine whether to activate the requirements of the border emergency authority under paragraph (3)(B) until the number of days that the authority has not been activated is equal to the number of days left in the calendar year; and ‘‘(iii) when the number of calendar days remaining in the calendar year is equal to the number of days that the authority has not been activated, the Secretary shall be required to activate the border emergency authority for the remainder of the calendar year on days during which the requirements of paragraph (3)(B) have been satisfied.
‘‘(7) EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OF AUTHORITY.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If the President finds that it is in the national interest to temporarily suspend the border emergency authority, the President may direct the Secretary to suspend use of the border emergency authority on an emergency basis.
‘‘(B) DURATION.—In the case of a direction from the President under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall suspend the border emergency authority for not more than 45 calendar days within a calendar year, notwithstanding any limitations on the use of the authority described in this subsection.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques.
The threat of COVID-19 continues to increase globally at an unprecedented rate. As part of the whole of government response to the pandemic crisis, the USBP's role in preventing the virus from spreading further into the United States is critical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because he was lying. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kybble Did you want to go over this list to see how many times Trump was in dereliction of duty, with his immigration policies that violated congressional law, violated international treaty, and violated the US constitution?
Proving dereliction
In order to prosecute a service member under Article 92, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the service member knew (or should have reasonably known) his duties and that he was either, through neglect or culpable inefficiency (i.e., being inefficient without just cause), derelict in the performance of those duties.[4]A duty is imposed in any one of the following ways:[4]
via a treaty,
statute,
regulation,
lawful order,
standard operating procedure, or
custom of the service
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roboneil408 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no immigrant children that went missing under this government, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterNebelung Title 42 suspended immigration title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. Title 42 also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation. That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42.
Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The GOP has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in our INA law. And the Right have named that statute as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed for votes from GOP supporters whose immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force on unarmed immigrants, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope not end of discussion learn our laws and the legal way. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DankKnutts
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcg.3830 status of the laws suit that challenges Bidens use of the safe third country exception.
What’s the status of this case?
CGRS and our co-counsel filed the legal challenge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 11, 2023, a few hours before the asylum ban took effect.
On July 25, Judge Jon Tigar vacated the rule, finding it unlawful. The Biden administration appealed the decision, and on August 3 the Ninth Circuit granted its request for a stay of Judge Tigar’s ruling, pending resolution of the appeal, and put the case on a highly expedited schedule.
After oral argument the parties filed a joint motion to hold the case in abeyance so that they might attempt to settle the case. On February 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision granting the motion.
On March 7, 2024, the states of Alabama, Kansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia, filed a motion to intervene in the litigation, claiming that they will be harmed if the Rule is vacated, and the ban is lifted. Both the government and plaintiff organizations have filed responses opposing the states’ intervention.
This ban currently remains in effect pending the outcome of settlement negotiations and/or the government’s appeal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 300K missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenZ827 "May 17, 2019
WASHINGTON — Hundreds of migrants are being flown from South Texas to holding cells in California by the Department of Homeland Security, in a move that officials said on Friday could be expanded by sending asylum seekers to processing centers throughout the United States, including the border with Canada."
"05/27/2019 08:17 AM EDT
The United States is for the first time sending illegal border-crossers to other cities for processing, transporting more than 3,000 each week from southern Texas and Arizona to other locations as the government struggles to deal with surging numbers of nearly 100,000 migrants a month crossing the southern border.
The Trump administration is flying migrants to San Diego and Del Rio, Texas, and busing them to El Centro, Calif., and Laredo, Texas, according to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official familiar with the plan. There, they are being processed — which includes photographs, health screenings, fingerprints and background checks — before they are often released and told to return for a court hearing at a later date."
"The Department of Homeland Security is laying the groundwork for a plan to transport recent border crossers by plane to cities around the U.S. and release them after processing, according to two DHS officials familiar with the plan.
Florida officials expressed anger on Thursday after learning that the Trump administration was planning to release hundreds of migrants in Broward and Palm Beach counties each month.
Beyond South Florida, DHS is considering other areas around the country where immigrants can be released, the two officials told NBC News. A Customs and Border Protection official, who held a conference call with reporters Friday afternoon, said the agency is primarily interested in communities along the northern border and on the coast, where there is already a border patrol presence."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no immigrant children that went missing under this government, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@windowsVD here is her counter argument. Trumps attorneys made the same argument you did. - East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no immigrant children that went missing under this government, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melindamorgan4879
"MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM:Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT:42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelsuafel3576 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danielkaiser8971 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques."
So the guy in this clip order the use of title 42 over title 8. That places immigrants in expedited removal free to recross as often as the want because they are not being penalized under title 8 or allowed to request asylum. This caused the crisis at the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Akanoyoru East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ssuwandi3240 LOL, you are a gift. Not only to the Right wing leadership and media who manipulated you, but to a troll like me who knows how low informed and easily manipulated the Right is. I'm aware of the AOC clip that you are referring to. She was correct Homan was lying, and I unlike you have read asylum law. The only thing that any one has to do to request asylum is be on US soil and request it. Crossing the border between check points does not have any bearing on the request or the ability to receive asylum. Nor can they be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country to request asylum, as long as they seek out a border agent. The vetting of their claim comes after.
This is proven clearly in the general provision of the statue itself.
"§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."
It's clear in international law.
Article 31 of 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]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.19 U.S.T. at 6275
And has been upheld in the court
East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump
You know nothing of immigration law or when you are being manipulated by your media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
NO state has the authority to have it's own foreign policy or immigration laws. And deportation laws do not change by presidents they do through congress. Presidents do have limited executive power, but not that overrides congressional law.
1956 – President Dwight D. Eisenhower used executive authority to “parole” 923 foreign-born orphans into the custody of U.S. military families seeking to adopt them.
1959-72 – Presidents Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon used executive powers to parole into the U.S. a majority of 621,403 Cuban asylum seekers fleeing the Cuban revolution. The Cuban Adjustment Act was pending in Congress at the time.
1976 – President Gerald Ford granted so-called extended voluntary departure to protect from deportation an unknown number of Lebanese who fled Lebanon for the U.S. They also were provided work permission.
1980 – President Jimmy Carter paroled 123,000 Cubans and Haitians into the U.S. during the Mariel boatliff.
1987 - President Ronald Reagan deferred deportation for children in more than 100,000 families if the parents of the families were gaining legal status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, that granted legalization to about three million immigrants.
1990 – President George H. Bush used executive powers to defer deportations of up to 1.5 million spouses and children of people legalized under IRCA.
1992 – Presidents George H. Bush and Bill Clinton granted stays of deportation to about 190,000 Salvadorans whose temporary protected status that allowed them to live and work in the U.S. had expired.
2002 – President George W. Bush expedited naturalization for green card holders who enlisted in the military, eliminating a three year wait. No numbers of how many affected was available.
2012 – President Barack Obama used executive power to defer deportations for up to 1.8 million young immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
1
-
1
-
@melindamorgan4879 Because Abbot is violating US immigration laws and international treaty. Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beckyg.8228 East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of the courts decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kerrryschultz2904
pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement
§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.
(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimpatriot6918 "Are asylum seekers detained while waiting for a credible
fear interview?
Yes. An asylum seeker is initially detained in a holding facility
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
How long does an asylum seeker remain in immigration
detention?
The amount of time an asylum seeker may stay in
immigration detention can vary. Once an individual is found
to have a credible fear of return, the government may be able
to assess some individuals for parole (see below) using a set
of criteria for potential release from detention or placement
into an alternative detention. Other asylum seekers may
receive a bond hearing (and receive bonds too high to pay).
Many will remain in detention for the duration of their case,
often lasting many months or even years
What does it mean to be paroled?
After an “arriving” asylum seeker – those apprehended at the
ports of entry – passes the credible fear screening process
and is put into removal proceedings, he or she can be
assessed for potential release on parole from detention.
Parole authority is a longstanding part of the immigration
system and is consistent with statute and Congressional
intent in existing immigration laws. Current parole guidelines
direct that in each assessment, the government verifies
identity and determines that an individual does not pose a
flight risk or danger to the community. If there is a need for
additional supervision or monitoring to assure appearance at
court hearings, ICE can utilize effective alternatives to
detention (see below).
What are alternatives to detention? Are alternatives to
detention successful in meeting the government’s needs?
The government may utilize a range of alternatives to
detention, similar to alternatives used in criminal justice
systems, for immigrants in removal proceedings. Alternatives
to detention include electronic monitoring, telephonic or inperson reporting requirements and other tools in order to
support appearances in immigration court and removal
proceedings. Alternatives, including community-based
support programs, have been reported to be successful in
achieving high rates of compliance."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SirRizzALot997 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@legoxb "MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques."
So the guy in this clip order the use of title 42 over title 8. That places immigrants in expedited removal free to recross as often as the want because they are not being penalized under title 8 or allowed to request asylum. This caused the crisis at the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kathleenmoyer5478 "On April 18, 2023, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability held a hearing concerning the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) unaccompanied children program. The witness, director of the ORR, Ms. Robin Dunn-Marcos defended the current system used to care for unaccompanied migrant children. However, congressmen from both sides of the aisle raised concerns and were critical of the vetting process and post release services the ORR offers.
While there was consensus that the current system of care must be reformed, several arguments from both parties were highly polarized. Consistently, Dunn-Marcos was questioned about the 85,000 migrant children that were reported missing after receiving ORR care, and wanted to know what the ORR does to protect children after they are discharged. However, Dunn-Marcos made it clear that the ORR relinquishes all custodial authority once the child has been placed with a sponsor. She argued that these 85,000 children are not “lost”, but rather beyond the responsibility of the ORR to monitor or track children after discharge. Additionally, sponsors are not legally required to report back to the ORR about the whereabouts or situation of the placed child. The lack of knowledge beyond the walls of ORR care concerned all members of the committee, and Dunn-Marcos advocated for more funding to continue to expand post release and legal services.
Many concerns were raised about the vetting process for sponsors of unaccompanied children, specifically citing the ORR’s move to remove the proof of address requirement for sponsors, as well as the exemption of a submitted background check for all other household members. While this helps mitigate the amount of time children have to wait to receive ideal care, members of the committee were concerned that this only increases unsafe sponsorship placements; they stressed the importance of prioritizing children over speed. Concerns over child labor, sex trafficking, abuse, whistle-blower worker violations and more were repeatedly mentioned. Dunn-Marcos indicated that the ORR is currently strengthening their relationship with the Department of Labor to help reduce the rising rates of child labor.
However, she made it clear that the ORR is not a law enforcement agency and does not have the power to remove a child from an unsafe placement. Dunn-Marcos also referred to the available hotlines and education given to both children and sponsors, as well as temporarily blocking placements to certain zip codes, additional supervisory reviews, and more home visits to respond to concerns. Yet, several congressmen noted that we need to invest more into the system to help these unaccompanied children and bring innovative solutions to the table."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrMSBranham "As of March 2022, over 1.6 million single adults, nearly 200,000 individuals in a family unit, and nearly 16,000 unaccompanied minors have been expelled cumulatively under Title 42. The number of family expulsions under Title 42 also grew between FY2020 and FY2021, while expulsions of unaccompanied minors decreased, reflecting their exemption from the policy beginning in February of 2021. These encounter counts reflect repeat encounters with individuals, as each attempt by the same individual to cross the border is counted as a new encounter.28 In the last 6 months of 2021, a quarter of the encounters under Title 42 were of the same individuals on multiple occasions, with recidivism rates under the authority being at their highest levels in over a decade. While Title 42 is intended COVID-19 exposure risk at the border, it has led to an increasing number of encounters at the border. This is in large part because, unlike Title 8, migrants apprehended under Title 42 are immediately expelled and, consequently, those with repeat encounters do not face any penalties and may make repeated attempts to cross."
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of the courts findings and decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BustedFlush-u3t "MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chuck2306 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.
East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of the courts decision.
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.
After he lost his appeal in court Trump released an Executive Order to stop the child separations for all family units in violation of US code 1325, even though he didn't use an executive order to create the zero tolerance policy memorandum that caused the separations. Then in the same EO blamed Congress for the separation policy he created.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pdgarciac East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnnyrocket9372 Ted talks about catch and release. That is a catch all phrase used by the right to try and explain all immigration happening at the border, legal and illegal immigration. Ted tries to continue with the false Right wing narrative that most asylum seekers do not show up for their hearing. The data on this is clear and ignored by the Right who want to build on the narrative that they do not appear. Official sources are around 90%, but Trumps policies have made it more difficult to receive notification or speak to legal representation. That is why we have a law that states when an asylum has passed a creditable fear interview they are to remain in the US (US code 1158 section 235b1). That is what the Right is calling a catch and release policy. This makes Trumps remain in Mexico policy a violation of the law. It is contrary to Trumps false comment.
Ted is cherry picking by looking at an Axios news report, that does not discuss those showing up at court hearings. It was discussing those have not been given a court hearing who check in with ICE after 60 days. The same article says that average to meet that 60 day window is 70%. The 13% was for those in a three month period out of the total only half were late to that window. So out of 50,000, 27,000 were still within the dead line to report, 6,700 reported to ICE, and 16,000 were late to report in. This does not give any information as to who shows up for hearings. Ted was lying.
That covers the first 2:30 of the clip. Then Ted continues with the false narrative that the Right want to build with the 450k settlement. Mayorkas tries to correct the context of those false talking points. As no official amount has been released and the amount of settlement would be different for each plaintiff. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the plaintiff's were illegal or that they broke any laws. Ted and the Right wing media wants to hide the fact this is due to Trump and his policies that they supported and hide from its viewers when they knew it was a violation of the law.
Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border.
We are being sued for that policy. They have a solid case, Biden is looking at settling to save tax payers money.
Does he believe we should be paying legal immigrants for a Trump policy that violated the law? Nope. How this affects others immigrating is irrelevant and cannot be answered, by a single factor analysis built by Ted to feed a narrative to the low informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate Chief
s
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidmoore3479 "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with safeguarding the United States against threats to its security, including threats exacerbated by disinformation.
Disinformation, which is false information that is deliberately spread with the intent to deceive or mislead, can take many forms. When it comes to DHS’s work, the Department is focused on disinformation that threatens the security of the American people, including disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations. Such malicious actors often spread disinformation to exploit vulnerable individuals and the American public, including during national emergencies.
For nearly 10 years, different agencies across DHS have worked to address disinformation that threatens our homeland security. Here are some examples:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counters disinformation that cartels and human smugglers spread to migrants to persuade them to cross our southwest border illegally. CBP’s work includes its “Say No to the Coyote” campaign, making clear that entering the United States illegally is a crime.
In 2012, during Hurricane Sandy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) corrected false information about the safety of drinking water and the location of shelters, to protect and serve the hurricane’s victims. FEMA has since built capacity to identify and respond to false information during major disaster responses, including Hurricanes Maria and Ida, during which FEMA provided critical information to protect disaster survivors from targeted scams. FEMA also ensures that disinformation campaigns do not prevent Americans from accessing federal aid during and after disasters.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) works with private sector stakeholders to mitigate the risk of disinformation to U.S. critical infrastructure, work that has continued in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Department identifies disinformation that threatens the homeland through publicly available sources, research conducted by academic and other institutions, and information shared by other federal agencies and partners. DHS then shares factual information related to its mission to potentially impacted people and organizations.
The Department is deeply committed to doing all of its work in a way that protects Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. In fact, the Disinformation Governance Board is an internal working group that was established with the explicit goal of ensuring these protections are appropriately incorporated across DHS’s disinformation-related work and that rigorous safeguards are in place. The working group also seeks to coordinate the Department’s engagements on this subject with other federal agencies and a diverse range of external stakeholders. The working group does not have any operational authority or capability.
There has been confusion about the working group, its role, and its activities. The reaction to this working group has prompted DHS to assess what steps we should take to build the trust needed for the Department to be effective in this space. As a result, we will be taking the following additional steps:
Under Secretary Mayorkas’s leadership, the Department has renewed its commitment to transparency and openness with the public and Congress. DHS will proactively release comprehensive quarterly reports about the working group’s activities to Congress, including its oversight committees.
Secretary Mayorkas will request that the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) make recommendations for how the Department can most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to the homeland, while protecting free speech and other fundamental rights, and that HSAC Co-Chair Jamie Gorelick and HSAC Member Michael Chertoff lead this effort. Ms. Gorelick is a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General and Mr. Chertoff was Secretary of Homeland Security during President George W. Bush’s Administration.
At Secretary Mayorkas’s request, DHS is exploring additional ways to enhance the public’s trust in this important work.
The working group is co-chaired by the DHS Office of Policy and Office of the General Counsel, and includes other DHS leaders from CISA, FEMA, CBP, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Science and Technology Directorate, and Privacy Office."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@luckypupito1344 Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melissacoupal585 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickproctor3462 Yep all on Democrats.
"President Trump on Sunday night signed a massive coronavirus relief and spending package, relenting on a measure he had called a "disgrace" days earlier.
The legislation, which combines $900 billion in COVID-19 aid with government funding through September 2021, was passed by large majorities in both chambers of Congress on Dec. 21 — only to see Trump blindside legislators the next day and blast the bill. But on Tuesday, Trump blasted the legislation, calling it a "disgrace."
He criticized Congress for not providing more in direct payments to Americans, suggesting the amount should increase to up to $2,000 per qualifying individual and $4,000 for couples.
That's despite the fact that it was members of Trump's own party who had rejected proposals for higher payments during negotiations. Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan effort to include $1,200 direct payments in the relief deal.
Trump also complained that too much money was being allocated to foreign aid and domestic projects not related to the coronavirus pandemic. The reality is that congressional leaders passed the relief bill in combination with a broader spending bill that funds the government. The president has signed bills including money for these programs in the past couple of years.
In a statement of his own, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., applauded Trump for signing the package, without mentioning any of Trump's demands."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dianasims6819 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fillipper The SCOTUS going against a previous SCOTUS ruling that a President has to use the same method to reverse a policy in the same manor in how it was created.
DEC. 27, 2022. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to keep in place the emergency health order the federal government has used for more than two years to quickly turn away migrants, including those seeking asylum, at the southwest border.
The latest ruling replaces an order issued by Chief Justice John G. Roberts last week that halted the lifting of the health policy, known as Title 42, which the Biden administration had planned to wind down. Title 42 will remain in place for at least two more months. In its Tuesday order, the high court agreed to hear arguments in February on whether an Arizona-led coalition of 19 states, including Texas, can challenge a lower-court ruling that ordered the Biden administration to lift Title 42.
That lower-court ruling will remain blocked until the high court makes a decision on the more procedural issue of whether the GOP-led states can intervene in a lawsuit originally filed by immigrant advocates against the federal government. The Tuesday ruling came down on a 5-4 vote, with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the court’s three liberal justices in opposing the majority’s decision.
The Trump administration invoked the use of Title 42 in March 2020 as the COVID-19 pandemic began, calling it a necessary step to help stop the virus’s spread in immigrant detention centers. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, has since said that immigrants are not driving up the number of COVID-19 cases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shakesitoff1122 Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StephenZ827 East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied . Page 19-21 of the courts decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IVideo8 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nitasheehan2704 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@earnestleesaddened3779 He answered all the relevant questions and when he tried to add context Ted shut him down. The answer to the first question is false. The only reason Trump could possibly have "saw the lowest number in 45 years" is because he was a one term President. And historically those rate are applied to the last administration as they are responsible for the last budget and policy decisions.
After a 17 year decline in border crossings starting when Bush took office we reached the lowest number in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. This was when the Right was calling for a border wall after border crossings went from a 1,000,000 per year to under 500,000. Within two years Trumps policies took that number back up to 977,000 in 2019. Lol you notice Ted stops him when he says 2019 and wants a yes or no answer. Then Ted asked the number of total in the calendar year. Yearly apprehension rates go by the federal fiscal calendar year, that means the first 4 months of last years apprehension numbers are under Trumps administration and they were record numbers for those months. Ted knows this, but asks a question that can not be answered as it's a future estimate and guess of what will happen. Again he was given the correct number.
Then he asks about children and that is answered. Ted asks about "got aways", that is also an estimated guess determined by the number of apprehensions. Then he asks how many have died crossing illegally into the United States, also not a number that he would be expected to have. Nor did the Right seem to care to ask that question about Trump.
This was grandstanding for a sound bite for YouTube. Where were Teds questions and the Rights concern when Trump policies violated immigration law and separated parents from legal asylum seekers? Where was Ted when Trumps remain in Mexico policy, that also violates US immigration law, forced legal asylum seekers to remain on the Mexican side of the border in reach of cartels and traffickers? There are many question about the border, the Right is asking all the wrong ones to try and shift blame from Trumps failed policies that left the border in a mess long before Biden took over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Halo3Matalix Under U.S. immigration law, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has discretion to grant “parole” to certain noncitizens to allow them to enter or temporarily remain in the United States for specific reasons. Parole under immigration law is very different than in the criminal justice context. This fact sheet explains the nature of parole, how parole requests are considered, who may qualify, and what parole programs currently exist.
What is Parole?
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion to temporarily allow certain noncitizens to physically enter or remain in the United States if they are applying for admission but do not have a legal basis for being admitted. DHS may only grant parole if the agency determines that there are urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons for a person to be in the United States and that person merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Grants of parole are made for limited periods of time, often to accomplish a discrete purpose, and individuals are typically expected to depart the United States when the authorized period expires unless another form of status or relief is conferred.
While individuals who receive a grant of parole are allowed to enter the United States, they are not provided with an immigration status nor are they formally “admitted” into the country for purposes of immigration law. An admission occurs when an immigration officer allows a noncitizen to enter the United States pursuant to a visa or another entry document, without the limitation of parole. The distinction between an admission and parole is a significant one under immigration law.
Who Has Authority to Grant Parole?
The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated parole authority to the three immigration agencies within DHS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
USCIS adjudicates many of the parole requests made by individuals seeking to enter the United States for humanitarian reasons, while ICE typically handles parole requests related to court hearings or intelligence matters, as well as parole from immigration detention. ICE has separate jurisdiction over decisions about whether or not to parole detained individuals out of ICE custody, including “arriving aliens” who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture. CBP has authority to make parole decisions at ports of entry. For example, it can parole noncitizens fleeing persecution and who wish to apply for asylum. It also may parole individuals for “deferred inspection,” which means that they permit an individual to enter the United States, but they schedule a subsequent interview to address unresolved issues about their admissibility.
What is Humanitarian Parole?
While humanitarian parole is explicitly authorized by the INA for “urgent humanitarian reasons,” there is no statutory or regulatory definition of an “urgent humanitarian reason.” USCIS has stated, however, that it will consider factors such as the time-sensitivity of the circumstances and the degree of suffering that may result if parole is not authorized. According to USCIS, examples of urgent humanitarian circumstances could include, but are not limited to:
Receiving critical medical treatment in the United States;
Becoming an organ donor to an individual in the United States;
Visiting or caring for a sick relative in the United States;
Attending a funeral or settling the affairs of a deceased relative in the United States; or
Coming to the United States for protection from targeted or individualized harm.
What is Significant Public Benefit Parole?
Immigration law also authorizes parole that would result in a “significant public benefit,” but—like humanitarian parole—there is no statutory or regulatory definition of the term. Typically, this form of parole is used to allow noncitizens to appear for and participate in a civil or criminal legal proceeding in the United States. Significant public benefit parole might be granted, for example, to allow a key witness with no legal means of entering the United States to be paroled into the country long enough to testify in a criminal prosecution for drug trafficking.
What is Advance Parole?
Certain noncitizens who are already present in the United States, but wish to leave the country and return, can apply for “advance parole.” This constitutes permission from DHS to re-enter the United States after travel abroad. Importantly, however, the issuance of an advance parole document is not a guarantee that a person will be permitted to re-enter the United States when inspected at a port of entry upon their return.
Advance parole is commonly used when someone:
Filed an application for adjustment of status, but has not received a decision from USCIS;
Has a pending application for asylum or withholding of removal and intends to depart from the United States temporarily to apply for a U.S. immigrant visa in Canada;
Has an “emergent personal or bona fide reason” to travel temporarily abroad, such as a sick family member abroad; or
Is a Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipient who seeks advance permission to travel abroad.
As of July 2022, USCIS will discontinue the use of advance parole for TPS recipients and instead create a TPS-specific travel document that uses a separate legal authority to permit TPS recipients to travel outside the United States and be inspected and admitted upon their return.
What Factors Are Considered in Making a Parole Decision?
Each DHS component has its own methodology for making parole decisions. Moreover, the factors to be considered will vary depending on the type of parole requested. In general, however, since parole is a discretionary benefit, all parole decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, with the immigration officer considering the reason for the request and whether it constitutes a basis for parole, and then weighing the positive factors in the noncitizen’s case against any negative factors. In deciding whether to favorably exercise discretion, the immigration officer evaluates a number of factors, including:
The reason for the parole request;
Whether there is evidence of any criminal history or previous immigration violations;
Whether there is evidence of any previous participation in fraud;
Whether the noncitizen’s presence would benefit a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident (LPR), or community in the United States;
Evidence of the noncitizen’s character; or
Whether there are other means available to the noncitizen to enter the United States for the stated parole purpose, such as a visa.
The Parole Process and How It Works: Step-by-Step
Parole is reviewed on a case-by-case basis by an agency within DHS, and the burden of proof is placed on the applicant to establish that parole should be authorized. If parole is authorized, the agency authorizing parole will specify how long it may last, tailored to accomplish the purpose of the parole. Parole ends on the date it is set to expire, when the beneficiary departs the United States, or when the individual acquires an immigration status. DHS may revoke parole at any time if it is no longer warranted or the beneficiary violates the conditions of the parole. A parolee may also apply to extend or renew their parole with the agency that first issued the parole.
Must an Applicant for Parole into the United States Have a Sponsor within the United States?
Anyone may request parole into the United States from USCIS. The request may be submitted by the noncitizen or by another person on behalf of the noncitizen. With such requests, USCIS requires proof that the noncitizen will have a means of support while in the United States, often requiring that a parolee have a sponsor who agrees to provide financial support for the duration of the parole authorization period while the parolee is in the United States. An inability to provide evidence of financial support while in the United States may lead to a denial of parole. While there is no official requirement regarding a sponsor’s immigration status, DHS may consider a sponsor who has a more permanent status in the United States more favorably, based on its assumption that such sponsors are more reliably able to provide financial support to the parolee.
Parole from Immigration Detention
Parole is also a way a person can be released from immigration detention. Decisions on whether to release a person from ICE custody on parole are made by ICE and are based on the same factors as parole issued by USCIS. Parole from ICE custody is also divided into humanitarian parole and significant public benefit parole. The executive has the authority to issue memoranda describing what constitutes significant public benefit parole or humanitarian parole, since neither are defined in the statute or regulations and both are still based on a case-by-case analysis. One example of this is a memo encouraging release of arriving aliens who were found to have a credible fear of persecution and/or torture.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kerrryschultz2904 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lynnmarie2962 US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says asylum seekers are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1225. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers who use a port of entry and pass a creditable fear interview, to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps. The increase of unaccompanied minors came after Trumps separation policies and remain in Mexico
Single adults are still all placed in expedited removal under title 42. They are responsible for the increased in repeat offenders recrossing under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used by republicans to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify, or be placed in deportation removal if they do not.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions for children and asylum request and along with how they entered and if they are sponsored. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dakotatheplumber1287 Missouri v. Biden (Amicus Brief)
On July 4, 2023, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a broad range of federal government officials from communicating with social media companies for certain purposes. The Brennan Center, along with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law and Common Cause, filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the injunction interferes with civil rights organizations’ right to communicate with officials about election disinformation that threatens the communities they serve.
In May 2022, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a number of private plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging that federal government officials violated the First Amendment by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media companies to remove or demote content from their platforms. Plaintiffs contend that federal officials specifically targeted conservative-leaning speech across a range of topics, including the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic, the efficacy of masks and vaccines, the security of voting by mail, the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, and more.
On July 4, 2023, the district court judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants and anyone “acting in concert with them” from communicating with social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” It also prohibits the defendants from “collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with” non-government actors for these purposes. The injunction contains a number of exceptions, but because some of the prohibitions and exceptions appear to overlap, it is hard to know precisely what conduct is covered by the injunction and what is exempted.
Along with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law and Common Cause, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the preliminary injunction and arguing that the decision should be vacated. The brief explains that information sharing between social media companies, government officials, and other relevant stakeholders, including amici, is critical to ensuring the integrity of elections and protecting the voting rights of all Americans. Amici argue that the district court’s injunction violates the First Amendment rights of amici and other civil society organizations by restricting their ability to speak freely with government officials about election disinformation and to petition the government for redress of grievances. In addition, because the scope of the injunction is overbroad and unclear, amici argue that the ruling will chill organizations and government actors from coordinating on important election integrity work.
On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision which found that the injunction was indeed overbroad and vague. The Fifth Circuit vacated much of the injunction, including its inclusion of third-party actors and those working “in concert with” the government. The ruling establishes that third-party actors have First Amendment protections and were not within the proper scope of the injunction, as the Brennan Center, along with Lawyer’s Committee and Common Cause, had argued in our amicus brief. Importantly, this ruling allows our organizations and other civil society organizations to continue their work protecting the public against election disinformation.
However, the Fifth Circuit erred by finding that certain government agencies (specifically the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI) were significantly entangled in platforms’ moderation decisions. They found that this rendered the platforms’ decisions “state actions,” even in the absence of any coercive language or threats by the CDC. As the Brennan Center previously argued, mere information sharing and advocacy by officials who lack the authority to coerce social media companies does not amount to state action. In fact, it is vital that government officials share relevant factual information about critical topics such as public health and elections.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardclifton4120 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. This attempt have pushed immigrants away from ports of entry to crossing between. Cartels and traffickers have now taken advantage of that and overwhelmed border patrol. Open borders did not cause this crisis. Yet now using this hate filled rhetoric to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right are doing nothing to help fix the problem. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dadasaurusrex Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melindamorgan4879 No requirements in international treaty and in the statute you are trying to claim in your ignornace. "pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement"
(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien's nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien's last habitual residence) in which the alien's life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@StillLivinginthewoods And like I said what's missing from the Right is context. Yes they are being flown all over the country just as they were under Trump and it's due to the fact that we have laws requiring it, but your media doesn't tell that part of the story. Yes this administration was looking into settling out of court, to legal asylum seekers, for Trumps policies that charged them for crimes and separated their children. His separation policy was reversed in East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. That is why there was talks of a settlement. The amount again was never confirmed and was from a "leaked source", the $450k amount was denied and never proven yet Right wing leadership and media still used it to build false narratives. The border issue is about the Rights agenda to ignore, lie, stop, and criminalize legal asylum. We had a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, before Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps polices doubled the number coming across to 977,000, a 20 year high. The numbers only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before going back to a 20 year high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and growing ever since. The Right wants to act like immigration started in 2020, or as if Trumps policies were working. You say you care about due process. Where was the due process for immigrants under Trumps policies? You don't seem to know anything first hand only the propaganda from your media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
stop lying about things you know nothing about. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jackyhallmark3094 this is the current process under current law. That Ted and your media are very aware of, but refuse to explain to the base.
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bossmlg6490 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And the right does not know the law. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ladybgail Ted tries to continue with the false Right wing narrative that most asylum seekers do not show up for their hearing. The data on this is clear and ignored by the Right who wants to build on the narrative that they do not appear. Official sources are around 90%, but Trumps policies have made it more difficult to receive notification or speak to legal representation. That is why we have a law that states when an asylum has passed a creditable fear interview they are to remain in the US (US code 1158 section 235b1). That is what the Right is calling a catch and release policy. This makes Trumps remain in Mexico policy a violation of the law.
Ted is cherry picking by looking at an Axios news report, that does not discuss those showing up at court hearings. It was discussing those have not been given a court hearing who check in with ICE after 60 days. The same article says that average to meet that 60 day window is 70%. The 13% was for those in a three month period out of the total only half were late to that window. So out of 50,000, 27,000 were still within the dead line to report, 6,700 reported to ICE, and 16,000 were late to report in. This does not give any information as to who shows up for hearings. Ted was lying.
That covers the first 2:30 of the clip. Then Ted continues with the false narrative that the Right want to build with the 450k settlement. Mayorkas tries to correct the context of those false talking points. As no official amount has been released and the amount of settlement would be different for each plaintiff. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the plaintiff's were illegal or that they broke any laws. Ted and the Right wing media wants to hide the fact this is due to Trump and his policies that they supported and hide from its viewers when they knew it was a violation of the law.
Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border.
We are being sued for that policy. They have a solid case, Biden is looking at settling to save tax payers money.
Does he believe we should be paying legal immigrants for a Trump policy that violated the law? Nope. How this affects others immigrating is irrelevant and cannot be answered, by a single factor analysis built by Ted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709 You are correct and one of the few that have actual facts, but still lacking in many so let the adult explain what you missed in your context so your head won't remain up your ars. The federal governments fiscal calendar year starts on October 1st. This means that for the year of 2017 started 10/1/2016-9/30/17, for both the budget and apprehension data. That is why Presidents can't take any responsibility for much of what happens in their first year and gives them time to create policy and a budget on the following 10/1.
This mean that Trump was still under the same policies that gave us a 17 year decline in southern border crossing that ended in 2017. Policies from Bush and Obama. Trumps first immigration policy change was in the summer of 2018. 2018 only saw a slight increase of 105,000 over the 415,000 of 2017 for a total of 520,00. By the end of the fiscal year of 2019, with Trumps policies in place it increased to 977,000, a 20 year high. Those numbers in 2020 normalized for winter months and declined due to covid. By October of 2020 those numbers were back to a 20 year monthly high they have increased and remained a 20 year high under those same failed policies under Trump, that also violated US immigration law. Biden is following immigration law, but Title 42, Remian in Mexico, and Trump destruction of polices that were working to fit in an agenda to stop legal immigration, is what caused this problem.
1
-
1
-
@antipsychosoup6709 And don't forget to look at the demographics of who was being apprehended under Trump and under Biden for crossing the border. More single adults under Trump and more children under Biden.
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws and just deports immigrants. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of return crosses is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally at any point and request asylum. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their claims, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of immigration law. With his child separation policy.
Remain in Mexico forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies.
Unaccompanied minors that are caught are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we caught in one area now have to be transported to another area on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
This why so many are being transported and it was the same under Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There is no program in the state of California giving free homes, or cash to buy them, to immigrants in the state illegally.
Claims to the contrary originate from a misinterpretation of a bill that passed the state legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 1840 would have modified an existing state program called California Dream for All.
This program allows certain Californians to apply for a lottery, the winners of which would receive a loan from the state to go toward a down payment and closing costs on a home. The loan can be worth up to 20 percent of the home’s value, capped at $150,000.
Recipients pay back the loan when they eventually sell the house. Interest is 20 percent of the home’s increase in value.
To be eligible for the lottery under the current law, applicants must meet all federal loan requirements, which include verifying legal residency and taxpayer status. In addition, they have to be first-time home buyers, first-generation home buyers, and fall under a certain income cap that varies by county.
According to the agency that administers the program, the California Finance Housing Agency, California Dream for All helped 2,182 people buy homes in its first year.
Assembly Bill 1840 proposed to make it so otherwise eligible applicants “shall not be disqualified by the agency solely based on the applicant’s immigration status.” In other words, even if they are in the country illegally, they would be eligible to participate in the lottery for one of these loans.
But the bill did not remove any of the other requirements to be eligible for a loan, such as having a Social Security or taxpayer ID number.
In his veto of the bill, Newsom said “Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ted is cherry picking by looking at an Axios news report, that does not discuss those showing up at court hearings. It was discussing those that have not been given a court hearing, who check in with ICE after 60 days. The same article says that average to meet that 60 day window is 70%. The 13% was for those in a three month period out of the total only half were late to that window. So out of 50,000, 27,000 were still within the dead line to report, 6,700 reported to ICE, and 16,000 were late to report in. This does not give any information as to who shows up for hearings. Ted was lying.
Then Ted continues with the false narrative that the Right want to build with the 450k settlement. Mayorkas tries to correct the context of those false talking points. As no official amount has been released and the amount of settlement would be different for each plaintiff. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the plaintiff's were illegal or that they broke any laws. Ted and the Right wing media wants to hide the fact this is due to Trump and his policies that they supported and hide from its viewers when they knew it was a violation of the law.
Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border.
We are being sued for that policy. They have a solid case, Biden is looking at settling to save tax payers money.
Does he believe we should be paying legal immigrants for a Trump policy that violated the law? Nope. How this affects others immigrating is irrelevant and cannot be answered, by a single factor analysis built by Ted to feed a narrative to the low informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Un-Burdened From Rodney Scott Border chief under Trumps and DHS sec Chad Wolf.
Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Under the United States’ international obligations and domestic immigration law, immigrants cannot be returned to their home countries if they would be subject to persecution or suffer torture at the hand of their government. To qualify for asylum, you must be unable or unwilling to return to your country because you have been persecuted in the past or have a well-founded fear of persecution because of your political opinion, religion, race, nationality, or membership in a particular social group. With some exceptions, you must apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States.
If you are inside the United States and are either in lawful status, overstayed your status, or entered illegally you can affirmatively apply for asylum with US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by filing form I-589. The general categories of people eligible for asylum or withholding of removal are those who will be or have been persecuted because of one of the following categories:
1. Religion
2. Ethnicity
3. Nationality
4. Political opinion
5. Membership in a particular social group
Asylum seekers may apply either when they arrive in the United States, or after they enter. In order to be able to be eligible for Asylum you must apply within one year of your entry into the US, although there are exceptions such as if you were in legal status, were a minor when you entered, or even if you suffered from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Individuals who fail to file within one year and don’t qualify for an exception are ineligible for asylum but may still apply for withholding of removal. Although the requirements are generally the same, asylum status is more beneficial for a variety of reasons. Asylees are able to adjust to permanent residency and get their green cards, therefore being placed on the path to citizenship. Asylees can also sponsor spouses and children if they remain overseas.
1
-
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to exercise discretion to temporarily allow certain noncitizens to physically enter or remain in the United States if they are applying for admission but do not have a legal basis for being admitted. DHS may only grant parole if the agency determines that there are urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons for a person to be in the United States and that person merits a favorable exercise of discretion. Grants of parole are made for limited periods of time, often to accomplish a discrete purpose, and individuals are typically expected to depart the United States when the authorized period expires unless another form of status or relief is conferred.
While individuals who receive a grant of parole are allowed to enter the United States, they are not provided with an immigration status nor are they formally “admitted” into the country for purposes of immigration law. An admission occurs when an immigration officer allows a noncitizen to enter the United States pursuant to a visa or another entry document, without the limitation of parole. The distinction between an admission and parole is a significant one under immigration law.
Who Has Authority to Grant Parole?
The Secretary of Homeland Security has delegated parole authority to the three immigration agencies within DHS: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
USCIS adjudicates many of the parole requests made by individuals seeking to enter the United States for humanitarian reasons, while ICE typically handles parole requests related to court hearings or intelligence matters, as well as parole from immigration detention. ICE has separate jurisdiction over decisions about whether or not to parole detained individuals out of ICE custody, including “arriving aliens” who establish a credible fear of persecution or torture. CBP has authority to make parole decisions at ports of entry. For example, it can parole noncitizens fleeing persecution and who wish to apply for asylum. It also may parole individuals for “deferred inspection,” which means that they permit an individual to enter the United States, but they schedule a subsequent interview to address unresolved issues about their admissibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captainmorgan3925 below is our immigration process that the Right is ignorant of and you leadership keeps lying about. And the Pres sec made clear in that discussion with Doocy that the Right edited out, because his job is to manipulate you too.
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ralphjessee2688 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
@mmcla5 "MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques."
So the guy in this clip order the use of title 42 over title 8. That places immigrants in expedited removal free to recross as often as the want because they are not being penalized under title 8 or allowed to request asylum. This caused the crisis at the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no immigrant children that went missing under this government, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kathyrogers2065 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cynthiariley-om4ve Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
@Sheba-bh7lc Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BondiAV East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Baseballisbest67 We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Independent or not your still a slave to Right wing media and propaganda or you wouldn't be listening to this site or making your initial claim. Lets just call you want you are a low informed Trump supporter. I asked you first what law did Biden break that would warrant an impeachment? This is one due to the fact it's February and the beginning of the immigration season, and Biden's February numbers are about 26,000 more then the Month of January that was at 78,000. Border crossing have been over 72,000 since October after jumping and extra 15,000 from the 57,000 in September. Where was the Right outrage then? In 2019 Trump went from 58k in Jan, to 76k in Feb, 103k in Mar, 109k in Apr, 144k in May, 104k in June, then started to decrease to 81k in July before normalizing again. You guys started to complain after Biden had 100,00 in his first 50 days. That was after correcting Trumps violation of the law that had more to cause this then Bidens correction back to the law Trump separated children at the border as a deterrent. and forces asylees to stay in Mexico for their hearing date. Both polices violated our INA laws, and both policies left immigrants vulnerable to traffickers and cartels.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no immigrant children that went missing under this government, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CxXxBot East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
@tylerlewis9984 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
@SwornReaper Asylum is legal immigration what part o do you not understand? That's right you don't understand any of it because you don't have a clue what our laws are. You do not know the legal process.
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
@ East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
@ East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mylanmiller9656 To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why cant the Right understand your leadership does nothing but lie. Crossing the border and requesting asylum is legal. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vincentcalderone5956 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@christinalachimia6688 Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gails8950 It's funny how some only read the part that fits the narrative they want.
And so, this increase has been consequential, but the Vice President has agreed — among the multiple other things that I have her leading — and I appreciate it — agreed to lead our diplomatic effort and work with those nations to accept re- — the returnees, and enhance migration enforcement at their borders — at their borders.
We’re already talking with Mexico about that; she’s already done that. We’re going to be dealing with a full team now that we have to be able to deal with the problem here at home, but also to deal with it now in terms of in country.
And I can think of nobody who — who is better qualified to do this than a former — this is a woman who ran the second-largest attorney general’s office in America — after the U.S. — after the United States Attorney General — in the state of California, and has done a great deal upholding human rights, but also fighting organized crime in the process.
So it’s not her full responsibility and job, but she’s leading the effort because I think the best thing to do is to put someone who, when he or she speaks, they don’t have to wonder about is that where the President is. When she speaks, she speaks for me. Doesn’t have to check with me. She knows what she’s doing, and I hope we can move this along.
But — so, Madam Vice President, thank you. I gave you a tough job, and you’re smiling, but there’s no one better capable of trying to organize this for us.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you, Mr. President and for having the confidence in me. And there’s no question that this is a challenging situation. As the President has said, there are many factors that lead precedent to leave these countries. And while we are clear that people should not come to the border now, we also understand that we will enforce the law and that we also — because we can chew gum and walk at the same time — must address the root causes that — that cause people to make the trek, as the President has described, to come here.
And I look forward to engaging in diplomacy with government, with private sector, with civil society, and — and the leaders of each in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, and ensure shared prosperity in the region.
We will collaborate with Mexico and other countries throughout the Western hemisphere. And as part of this effort, we expect that we will have collaborative relationships to accomplish the goals the President has and that we share.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@amathonn East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ButterfliesZebras77 My facts are easy to confirm on the CBP website. Where did you find your information to debunk the claims I've shown?
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@allandickman774 He answered all the relevant questions and when he tried to add context Ted shut him down. The answer to the first question is false. The only reason Trump could possibly have "saw the lowest number in 45 years" is because he was a one term President. After a 17 year decline in border crossings starting when Bush took office we reached the lowest number in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. This was when the Right was calling for a border wall after border crossings went from a 1,000,000 per year to under 500,000. Within two years Trumps policies took that number back up to 977,000 in 2019. that is why Ted shot down the answer to a yes or no. Then Ted asked the number of total in the calendar year. Yearly apprehension rates go by the federal fiscal calendar year, that means the first 4 months of last years apprehension numbers are under Trumps administration and they were record numbers for those months. Ted knows this, but asks a question that can not be answered as it's a future estimate and guess of what will happen. Again he was given the correct number. Then he asks about children and that is answered. Ted asks about "got aways", that is also an estimated guess determined by the number of apprehensions. then he asks how many have died crossing illegally into the United States, also not a number that he would be expected to have.
This was grandstanding for a sound bite for YouTube. Where was Teds questions and the Rights concern when Trump policies violated immigration law and separated parents from legal asylum seekers? Where was Ted when Trumps remain in Mexico policy that also violates US immigration law, forced legal asylum seekers to remain on the Mexican side of the border in the reach of cartels and traffickers? There are many question about the border, the Right is asking all the wrong ones to try and shift blame from Trumps failed policies that left the border in a mess long before Biden took over.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@demsareunamerican6800 Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes the Right lies about our immigration laws and the process while the Right wing base sits clueless of what is going on. HR was never going anywhere and the Senate bill is the only bill worth passing, but the Right will not because they do not want Biden to get a win.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WGAGENCY Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
"MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in counties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third parties, and deductive techniques."
So the guy in this clip order the use of title 42 over title 8. That places immigrants in expedited removal free to recross as often as the want because they are not being penalized under title 8 or allowed to request asylum. This caused the crisis at the border.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gatzucortezemmanuel357 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This guy was running the border for Trump and couldn't even use spell check, but he did order title 42 and it did suspend our immigration laws.
"MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe. "
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petersinclair8620 In the days leading up to President Donald Trump's televised address to the nation Tuesday night to promote his southern border wall, administration officials justified the proposal by claiming that thousands of terrorists pour across that border.
Data and analysis from Trump's own administration drastically undercut that message, calling into question whether the situation along the U.S.-Mexican border is truly a "national emergency" as Trump said.
White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Friday that Customs and Border Protection officials caught nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists "that came across our southern border." She repeated that on talk shows throughout the weekend, and Vice President Mike Pence used the same data point during an appearance on "Good Morning America" on Tuesday.
But in the State Department's summary of global terrorism threats published in September, analysts concluded there was "no credible evidence indicating that international terrorist groups ... sent operatives via Mexico into the United States."
Monday, NBC News reported that the number of known or suspected terrorists caught along the southern border in the first half of 2018 was about 1 percent of the Trump administration's claim. According to Customs and Border Protection data provided to Congress, the agency encountered 41 people on the Terrorist Screening Database from Oct. 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018, along the U.S.-Mexican border. Thirty-five of them were American citizens or lawful permanent residents, and only six were classified as non-U.S. persons.
Monday night, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway acknowledged in an appearance on Fox News that Sanders conflated two very different statistics while trying to make her argument. In fiscal year 2017, federal officials stopped 3,755 people on the terrorist watch list from traveling to or entering the USA, but that includes people traveling through airports, seaports and land ports. The majority of those tried to enter by air.
"That was an unfortunate misstatement," Conway said. "Everybody makes mistakes, all of us. The fact is, it's corrected here."
In a statement Monday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said she did not provide an exact number of how many of those on the terrorist watch list were stopped at the southern border, saying it was “sensitive” and could not publicly be released. Homeland Security did not dispute the accuracy of the NBC News report that found 41 known or suspected terrorists were caught there.
As criticism of their terrorism statistics increased, administration officials started using another metric to warn of potential dangers crossing the border.
In 2018, agents encountered more than 3,000 "special interest aliens" at the southern border. That is a loose definition that does not indicate any kind of specific intelligence on that person, only that he or she has traveled to or come from 35 countries considered to be of "special interest" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because of their historic ties to terrorism.
Nielsen cited those "special interest" people Monday in a series of tweets warning, "The threat is real."
In a statement after those tweets, Nielsen made clear that being designated a "special interest alien" does not mean the person is a national security threat.
"This does not mean that all (special interest aliens) are 'terrorists,' but rather that the travel and behavior of such individuals indicates a possible nexus to nefarious activity (including terrorism) and, at a minimum, provides indicators that necessitate heightened screening and further investigation," she wrote. "The term (special interest alien) does not indicate any specific derogatory information about the individual – and DHS has never indicated that the (special interest alien) designation means more than that."
1
-
@petersinclair8620 In recent days, as the Biden administration faces a new surge of migrants along the southwest border, Republican lawmakers are renewing warnings that international terrorists are trying to slip into the country through Mexico. But U.S. officials and experts say such warnings don't accurately capture how unlikely it is that international terrorists could access the United States through the U.S.-Mexico border.
"The notion that the Southwest border is open to terrorists is ludicrous," said Alex Nowrasteh, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. "The government has shown no evidence that terrorists use the Southwest border to get into the United States."
Speaking before reporters and cameras during a visit to the border in Texas on Monday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., disclosed that border patrol agents had just told him that suspected terrorists were recently apprehended trying to enter the United States.
"You saw in their eyes, they're on the list ... the terrorist watch list," McCarthy said.
"They are now finding people from Yemen and Iran and Turkey, people on the terrorist watch list," he added.
Other Republicans offered similar warnings.
"Individuals that they have on the watchlist for terrorism are now starting to exploit the southern border," Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y., said at the news conference with McCarthy and a dozen others.
Specifically, on Jan. 28, a Serbian national apprehended at the border in New Mexico was a positive match for someone on the U.S. government's Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, according to a source familiar with the matter. In addition, three others on the database -- all from Yemen -- were recently caught at the border, the source said.
But showing up on a terror watchlist doesn't mean someone is necessarily a terrorist, and it's exceedingly rare for someone encountered by a Border Patrol agent or a customs officer to be on that terrorist watchlist.
"Less than 0.0001 percent of total [Customs and Border Protection] inadmissible encounters and apprehensions involve persons who are watchlisted on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)," a senior Homeland Security Investigations official told Congress in 2018.
"It's an alert, it doesn't mean you arrest that person on site and charge them," David Lapan, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump, said of the watchlist. "There are many different ways that people end up on the terror watchlist. Sometimes it's a mistaken identity."
Others end up on the watchlist simply because they are "a cousin or a friend or a house cleaner" to a known terrorist, one U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted.
Furthermore, the U.S. government has established systems to prevent terrorists from entering the country -- as exhibited by the fact that four people on the government watchlist were successfully intercepted in recent months, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas suggested to lawmakers during a House hearing on Wednesday.
Terrorists trying to sneak into the United States is "not a new phenomenon," but "it is because of our multi-layered security apparatus [and] architecture that we have built since the commencement of the Department of Homeland Security that we are in fact able to identify and apprehend them," Mayorkas said. "We actually deny them entry based on our intelligence and based on our vetting procedures, which have only grown in sophistication over the years."
As for Nowrasteh, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, he studied the topic in a report on the risk of foreign-born terrorists in the U.S. between 1975 and 2017. In that time period, nine illegal immigrants of the more than 31 million people who entered the country illegally became terrorists – including three Macedonian brothers who entered the country as children and were raised in the United States.
"There are more people in the country illegally that overstay their visas than come across the southwest border," Lapan told ABC News, referencing the 9/11 hijackers, who all entered the United States on airplanes and overstayed their visas.
"It's not that there's zero chance of that happening, but we've just never seen evidence that it's a significant risk," he said.
In fact, "There has never been a terrorist attack in the United States by someone who illegally crossed the southern border," the U.S. official added.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@echtigren8188 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
@bretthogan5805 According to the immigration andNationality Act
, §1101. Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter-
(1) The term "administrator" means the official designated by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 1104(b) of this title.
(2) The term "advocates" includes, but is not limited to, advises, recommends, furthers by overt act, and admits belief in.
(3) The term "alien" means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
(4) The term "application for admission" has reference to the application for admission into the United States and not to the application for the issuance of an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa.
(5) The term "Attorney General" means the Attorney General of the United States.
(6) The term "border crossing identification card" means a document of identity bearing that designation issued to an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or to an alien who is a resident in foreign contiguous territory, by a consular officer or an immigration officer for the purpose of crossing over the borders between the United States and foreign contiguous territory in accordance with such conditions for its issuance and use as may be prescribed by regulations. Such regulations shall provide that (A) each such document include a biometric identifier (such as the fingerprint or handprint of the alien) that is machine readable and (B) an alien presenting a border crossing identification card is not permitted to cross over the border into the United States unless the biometric identifier contained on the card matches the appropriate biometric characteristic of the alien.
(7) The term "clerk of court" means a clerk of a naturalization court.
(8) The terms "Commissioner" and "Deputy Commissioner" mean the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and a Deputy Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, respectively.
(9) The term "consular officer" means any consular, diplomatic, or other officer or employee of the United States designated under regulations prescribed under authority contained in this chapter, for the purpose of issuing immigrant or nonimmigrant visas or, when used in subchapter III, for the purpose of adjudicating nationality.
(10) The term "crewman" means a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft.
(11) The term "diplomatic visa" means a nonimmigrant visa bearing that title and issued to a nonimmigrant in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe.
(12) The term "doctrine" includes, but is not limited to, policies, practices, purposes, aims, or procedures.
(13)(A) The terms "admission" and "admitted" mean, with respect to an alien, the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
(B) An alien who is paroled under section 1182(d)(5) of this title or permitted to land temporarily as an alien crewman shall not be considered to have been admitted.
(C) An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States for purposes of the immigration laws unless the alien-
(i) has abandoned or relinquished that status,
(ii) has been absent from the United States for a continuous period in excess of 180 days,
(iii) has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States,
(iv) has departed from the United States while under legal process seeking removal of the alien from the United States, including removal proceedings under this chapter and extradition proceedings,
(v) has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title, unless since such offense the alien has been granted relief under section 1182(h) or 1229b(a) of this title, or
(vi) is attempting to enter at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers or has not been admitted to the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@meatpopsicle1567
How can this rapid increase and record high influx since 2020 all be entirely the fault of Trump, seeing as how Biden has been POTUS since January 2021?
By suspending our legal enforcement under title 8 authority and misusing title 42 to undermine current laws.
Just how much influence are you inferring that Trump has had over U.S. domestic policy for the past three and a half years since leaving the office, and the powers, of the POTUS behind?
From the GOP continuing Trumps policy of undermining our existing laws to stop legal asylum. And fighting in court to keep title 42 in place, by not providing funding need to process the increased numbers at the border under laws passed by congress, and not supporting the bipartisan immigration reform from the Senate that would fix this problem.
Are you implying that the Biden administration is somehow helpless to stop it? If Biden is so helpless that he is incapable of undoing everything Trump did in the previous four years, why is he still POTUS, in that case?
Because Trump had to ignore laws passed by congress and ignore our constitutional separation of powers to fail and cause this issue under Biden who is following federal law. We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Are you suggesting Trump has somehow been making all this unfold as it has since January 2021, without any of the powers given to a sitting POTUS? How is he allowed to maintain those powers without office, if that is your suggestion?
No I’m saying it’s been going on since 2018 and the GOP have been working through the v courts to keep those failed policies in place and you need to do some independent research instead of living in a media bubble.
And, between campaigning for the 2024 general election and sitting in multiple courtrooms over that past couple of years, when has he actually had time to manipulate the White House and Congress with this implied arcane and mysterious power of nefarious influence over the Biden administration?
By having power to keep republicans congress from passing a bipartisan bill that would have worked. By having his campaign and members of his last administration lie and manipulate the right wing base on what has been going on at the border for the last decade. Problem is not Trump it’’s his low informed base and his media lying for him.
Does Trump have some sort of weird mojo that prevents Biden from stemming the massive influx that began the day he was sworn in back in January 2021? Are we in danger?
When Biden took office in January of 2021, border crossing had been at record levels every month for 5 months prior to Biden taking office under Trumps failed policies and continued as remain in Mexico and title 42 stayed in place until this year.
Can Trump control all of us with this mojo? Inquiring minds want to know!
Only his cult members that following him in complete ignorance of what he is actually doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kdawg2472 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@I_amFrankEinstein July 29, 2021
FACT SHEET: Strategy to Address the Root Causes of Migration in Central America
Home
Briefing Room
Statements and Releases
On February 2, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that called for the development of a Root Causes Strategy.
Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She has worked with bilateral, multilateral, and private sector partners, as well as civil society leaders, to help people from the region find hope at home. This complements work done throughout the U.S. government over the last six months to learn lessons from prior efforts and to consult with a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of this strategy.
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is releasing the Root Causes Strategy—a core component of our Administration’s efforts to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. This Strategy identifies, prioritizes, and coordinates actions to improve security, governance, human rights, and economic conditions in the region. It integrates various U.S. government tools, including diplomacy, foreign assistance, public diplomacy, and sanctions.
Implementation of the Strategy will rely on the expertise of a wide range of U.S. departments and agencies, with support from governments in and outside the region, civil society, the private sector, multilateral organizations, international financial institutions, and the U.S. Congress. These partnerships will bolster the impact of the Strategy through informing programmatic interventions, leveraging political will, and mobilizing necessary resources. The U.S. government will coordinate a place-based approach, targeting those areas where migrants are most likely to come from.
The Strategy is organized into five pillars:
Pillar I: Addressing economic insecurity and inequality;
Pillar II: Combating corruption, strengthening democratic governance, and advancing the rule of law;
Pillar III: Promoting respect for human rights, labor rights, and free press;
Pillar IV: Countering and preventing violence, extortion, and other crimes perpetrated by criminal gangs, trafficking networks, and other organized criminal organizations; and
Pillar V: Combating sexual, gender-based, and domestic violence.
The Vice President and the Administration have already taken action – notable accomplishments include:
Addressing immediate humanitarian needs including vaccines. On April 26, Vice President Harris announced $310 million in urgent relief to help address the acute factors of migration, including from hurricanes, the pandemic, and drought caused by climate change. To date, we have allocated over $250 million of the total funds, reaching over two million people. We also provided over 10 million COVID vaccine doses to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Countering corruption and democratic backsliding. Vice President Harris has been direct and unwavering in highlighting the problems of corruption, the need for reforms, and the vital importance of demonstrating commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, human rights, and a strong civil society—including during her bilateral meeting in Guatemala. Working with the Department of Justice, the Vice President launched an Anticorruption Task Force that will include U.S. prosecutors and law enforcement experts to investigate and prosecute corruption cases with a nexus in the United States and the region.
Addressing security concerns of mutual interest. Vice President Harris launched Anti-Migrant Smuggling Task Forces in both Mexico and Guatemala and secured commitments to increase border enforcement. She reached an agreement with the Mexican government to restart the high-level dialogue focused on the trafficking of weapons and drugs.
Internationalizing our efforts. The Vice President has said, “The United States cannot do this work alone.” She has reached out to international partners to highlight the need for increased support for Central America and secured commitments from a number of countries. She successfully encouraged the United Nations to develop a regional Humanitarian Response Plan to mobilize international donor support for the region.
Working with the private sector. On May 27, Vice President Harris launched a Call to Action for the private sector to make new commitments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to expand economic opportunities. The initial group of 12 companies and organizations committed to helping over 13 million people, offered to provide $750 million in resources, and established a non-profit organization to support economic development efforts in the region – The Partnership for Central America. These initial commitments will provide financial services to small business owners, internet access and digital banking to rural communities, housing for low-income families, and reduced barriers to higher education. Since the launch, over 150 companies and organizations have expressed interest in joining the Call to Action.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@blksbth1 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What are Republicans doing to fix the issue?
"The Department of Homeland Security continues to prepare for the lifting of the Title 42 public health order, which is currently the subject of multiple court orders requiring continued implementation. Once the Title 42 public health order is no longer in place, DHS will use its longstanding Title 8 immigration enforcement authorities to process all individuals encountered at the border.
At the outset, let me be clear: Title 42 or not, the border is not open. We will continue to fully enforce our immigration laws in a safe, orderly, and humane manner. Individuals without a legal basis to remain in the United States will be subject to prompt expulsion under Title 42 or removal under Title 8. We will comply with the court orders that require us to continue enforcing the Title 42 order, and we will also use this time to enhance and increase our use of expedited removal under Title 8 where permitted to do so.
Building on our work throughout 2022, today we are announcing new border enforcement measures to improve border security, limit irregular migration, and create additional safe and orderly processes for people fleeing humanitarian crises to lawfully come to the United States. These measures, taken together, are concrete steps to enhance the security of our border today, while the Title 42 public health order is in place, and steps that we will build on and extend to regular Title 8 processes once the Title 42 order is lifted.
Stepping back, fundamentally, we are here because our immigration system is broken, outdated, and in desperate need of reform. The laws we enforce have not been updated for decades. It takes four or more years to conclude the average asylum case, immigration judges have a backlog of more than 1.7 million cases"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomcynthiagutierrez7782 Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden at any time ever. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gails8950 MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 300K missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's called our INA laws that have been in place for 50 year's Homan is reading from his own script and the low informed and low moral Right wing base are in agreement with him. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jvq3616 Ted talks about catch and release. That is a catch all phrase used by the right to try and explain all immigration happening at the border, legal and illegal immigration. Ted tries to continue with the false Right wing narrative that most asylum seekers do not show up for their hearing. The data on this is clear and ignored by the Right who want to build on the narrative that they do not appear. Official sources are around 90%, but Trumps policies have made it more difficult to receive notification or speak to legal representation. That is why we have a law that states when an asylum has passed a creditable fear interview they are to remain in the US (US code 1158 section 235b1). That is what the Right is calling a catch and release policy. This makes Trumps remain in Mexico policy a violation of the law. It is contrary to Trumps false comment.
Ted is cherry picking by looking at an Axios news report, that does not discuss those showing up at court hearings. It was discussing those have not been given a court hearing who check in with ICE after 60 days. The same article says that average to meet that 60 day window is 70%. The 13% was for those in a three month period out of the total only half were late to that window. So out of 50,000, 27,000 were still within the dead line to report, 6,700 reported to ICE, and 16,000 were late to report in. This does not give any information as to who shows up for hearings. Ted was lying.
That covers the first 2:30 of the clip. Then Ted continues with the false narrative that the Right want to build with the 450k settlement. Mayorkas tries to correct the context of those false talking points. As no official amount has been released and the amount of settlement would be different for each plaintiff. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the plaintiff's were illegal or that they broke any laws. Ted and the Right wing media wants to hide the fact this is due to Trump and his policies that they supported and hide from its viewers when they knew it was a violation of the law.
Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border.
We are being sued for that policy. They have a solid case, Biden is looking at settling to save tax payers money.
Does he believe we should be paying legal immigrants for a Trump policy that violated the law? Nope. How this affects others immigrating is irrelevant and cannot be answered, by a single factor analysis built by Ted to feed a narrative to the low informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@None-jf8xg "In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
“For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns,” wrote Gorsuch, who was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort.”
Since March 2020, when the Covid pandemic took hold across the U.S., the Title 42 order has allowed border agents to immediately expel migrants who crossed the southern border on public health grounds. But earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the agency that formally issues the directive, determined it was no longer necessary, noting that Covid cases were far lower than the counts in 2020."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
More lies and nonsense from the lying right trying to discuss laws you know nothing about. East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashtonhenshaw8667 Ted talks about catch and release. That is a catch all phrase used by the right to try and explain all immigration happening at the border, legal and illegal immigration. Ted tries to continue with the false Right wing narrative that most asylum seekers do not show up for their hearing. The data on this is clear and ignored by the Right who wants to build on the narrative that they do not appear. Official sources are around 90%, but Trumps policies have made it more difficult to receive notification or speak to legal representation. That is why we have a law that states when an asylum has passed a creditable fear interview they are to remain in the US (US code 1158 section 235b1). That is what the Right is calling a catch and release policy. This makes Trumps remain in Mexico policy a violation of the law. It is contrary to Trumps false comment.
Ted is cherry picking by looking at an Axios news report, that does not discuss those showing up at court hearings. It was discussing those have not been given a court hearing who check in with ICE after 60 days. The same article says that average to meet that 60 day window is 70%. The 13% was for those in a three month period out of the total only half were late to that window. So out of 50,000, 27,000 were still within the dead line to report, 6,700 reported to ICE, and 16,000 were late to report in. This does not give any information as to who shows up for hearings. Ted was lying.
That covers the first 2:30 of the clip. Then Ted continues with the false narrative that the Right want to build with the 450k settlement. Mayorkas tries to correct the context of those false talking points. As no official amount has been released and the amount of settlement would be different for each plaintiff. Not to mention that there is no evidence that the plaintiff's were illegal or that they broke any laws. Ted and the Right wing media wants to hide the fact this is due to Trump and his policies that they supported and hide from its viewers when they knew it was a violation of the law.
Trumps separation policy violated US code 1158 of the 1980 INA immigration laws and article 31 of the 1968 ratified Geneva Convention. A federal Judge stopped that policy against asylum seekers and Trump later removed it on all families crossing between check points. That law says that asylum seekers can cross between check points and seek out a border agent and request asylum without penalty for crossing the border.
We are being sued for that policy. They have a solid case, Biden is looking at settling to save tax payers money.
Does he believe we should be paying legal immigrants for a Trump policy that violated the law? Nope. How this affects others immigrating is irrelevant and cannot be answered, by a single factor analysis built by Ted to feed a narrative to the low informed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johngalt1361 Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@j.sumner6999 Lets get the correst statute and not the cherry picked info.
§1325. Improper entry by alien
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
1
-
@j.sumner6999 East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is charged with safeguarding the United States against threats to its security, including threats exacerbated by disinformation.
Disinformation, which is false information that is deliberately spread with the intent to deceive or mislead, can take many forms. When it comes to DHS’s work, the Department is focused on disinformation that threatens the security of the American people, including disinformation spread by foreign states such as Russia, China, and Iran, or other adversaries such as transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling organizations. Such malicious actors often spread disinformation to exploit vulnerable individuals and the American public, including during national emergencies.
For nearly 10 years, different agencies across DHS have worked to address disinformation that threatens our homeland security. Here are some examples:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) counters disinformation that cartels and human smugglers spread to migrants to persuade them to cross our southwest border illegally. CBP’s work includes its “Say No to the Coyote” campaign, making clear that entering the United States illegally is a crime.
In 2012, during Hurricane Sandy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) corrected false information about the safety of drinking water and the location of shelters, to protect and serve the hurricane’s victims. FEMA has since built capacity to identify and respond to false information during major disaster responses, including Hurricanes Maria and Ida, during which FEMA provided critical information to protect disaster survivors from targeted scams. FEMA also ensures that disinformation campaigns do not prevent Americans from accessing federal aid during and after disasters.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) works with private sector stakeholders to mitigate the risk of disinformation to U.S. critical infrastructure, work that has continued in light of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Department identifies disinformation that threatens the homeland through publicly available sources, research conducted by academic and other institutions, and information shared by other federal agencies and partners. DHS then shares factual information related to its mission to potentially impacted people and organizations.
The Department is deeply committed to doing all of its work in a way that protects Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. In fact, the Disinformation Governance Board is an internal working group that was established with the explicit goal of ensuring these protections are appropriately incorporated across DHS’s disinformation-related work and that rigorous safeguards are in place. The working group also seeks to coordinate the Department’s engagements on this subject with other federal agencies and a diverse range of external stakeholders. The working group does not have any operational authority or capability.
There has been confusion about the working group, its role, and its activities. The reaction to this working group has prompted DHS to assess what steps we should take to build the trust needed for the Department to be effective in this space. As a result, we will be taking the following additional steps:
Under Secretary Mayorkas’s leadership, the Department has renewed its commitment to transparency and openness with the public and Congress. DHS will proactively release comprehensive quarterly reports about the working group’s activities to Congress, including its oversight committees.
Secretary Mayorkas will request that the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) make recommendations for how the Department can most effectively and appropriately address disinformation that poses a threat to the homeland, while protecting free speech and other fundamental rights, and that HSAC Co-Chair Jamie Gorelick and HSAC Member Michael Chertoff lead this effort. Ms. Gorelick is a former U.S. Deputy Attorney General and Mr. Chertoff was Secretary of Homeland Security during President George W. Bush’s Administration.
At Secretary Mayorkas’s request, DHS is exploring additional ways to enhance the public’s trust in this important work.
The working group is co-chaired by the DHS Office of Policy and Office of the General Counsel, and includes other DHS leaders from CISA, FEMA, CBP, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Science and Technology Directorate, and Privacy Office."
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ScrewOpenBorders And just for fun let's look at context. My God who was even listening to this crap to remember it. I hope you haver better examples than difference in opinions about nothing. Now compare this report against to the Right wing New York Post report, and tell me where the liars are? And by the way every other news report had pictures of the home, but not the false narrative driving NYP.
"In one of his most recent arguments for a southern border wall, President Trump on Sunday falsely claimed that the Washington home of former president Barack Obama and Michelle Obama is surrounded by a 10-foot wall.
Trump’s tweet comes in the midst of a partial government shutdown, which was spurred Dec. 22 by Trump’s demand for $5 billion in funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall. He alleged that the “wall” around the Obamas' mansion was necessary for the former first couple’s “safety and security,” adding that the United States needs a “slightly larger version!”
Trump’s assertion came as a surprise to two of the Obamas' neighbors Monday, who told The Washington Post that there is no such wall. The 8,200-square-foot structure, despite several security features, is completely visible from the street.
A neighbor, a longtime resident of the area who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their privacy, said Trump “has a very active imagination.”
“There’s a fence that goes along the front of the house, but it’s the same as the other neighbors have,” the neighbor said. “It’s tastefully done."
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tedc4982 Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theengineer2827 Thank you for making my case for me. *I will paraphrase because I don't remember exactly what was said, but the essence is correct- You asked what law has been broken. I replied that entering the country illegally (and obviously, aiding & abetting is by extension, illegal). You replied that the law in question is immigration law. Am I missing something here? -What law? -Illegal entry. -That's immigration law. -No shit, that's what I just said. Amd the reason you haven't heard from the right on the border for several years is because shortly after Trump took office Border Patrol was able to get a handle on the problem; eventually having the entire issue - not entirely, but effectively, solved.
Just never happened. Trump increased border crossings to a 20 year high it was a 20 year high for months before Biden took office.
All the current woes we're experiencing are the result of this admin's policies and their refusal to enforce the laws already in the CFR.
Can’t enforce laws that are suspended under title 42 that the Right are fighting to keep in place.
If your job is being in charge of the security of the homeland and your method is to work to let as many people in as possible, you've failed in your position and are therefore guilty of treason. Why? Because Mayorkas is well aware that the game played by the cartels is to flood a section of the border with families which takes all or almost all the agents off the border to process those families - as per this admins policy - leaving the crossing wide open to move fentinyl, meth & the bad guys (terrorists, gang members, etc) on in. This is known yet is allowed to continue. It is a massive failure to keep the homeland secure. In other words, treasonous. Mayorkas does do a good job of acting stupid, I'll grant that, but while doing what he is isn't exactly intelligent, his issue isn't being dumb, it's being a weak, feckless, joke of a man. Truly pathetic that he can't answer one single question - every time it's excuses comprised of self-inflicted problems. I could go on for hours on this topic, but I don't like to dwell.
Just complete nonsense from someone who has no idea what is going on or what our laws are.
I'll switch to another subject you mentioned - kids in cages. It is common knowledge at this point that the cages were built & put into use during the Obama admin, Trump continued use and they're still in use today by the Biden admin. The separation policy was necessary because the Obama admin wasn't vetting the folks claiming the children and it was discovered that many hundreds (as many as 1,500) children had been turned over to sex traffickers. Far better to have a comparatively small number of kids separated from their families than to put a child into the hands of a trafficker.
Another completely clueless statement, with no ability to understand the actual issue. There is a difference in following our laws and protecting children and Trumps policy of snatching children from LEGAL asylum seekers as a deterrent in an immoral policy that your media hide by telling you that Obama had cages and a separation policy too, and that is a lie, if you k now the context and you do not.
I'm curious, what is your response to all the low-skill labor who've been displaced by the illegals (who, by the way are mostly blacks)? Or to the families of those who've overdosed on fentinyl? Or the families of the 17 Border Patrol agents who committed suicide? How about the families of those murdered by MS13 gang members? Or killed by drunk driver illegals?
I would say look no further then the republican party who has caused this crisis at our border, by creating policies to undermine laws the right does not like.
If democrats and their pundits in MSM hadn't been talking for years now about the plan to change the demographics in key areas. Yet they are not, just more nonsense you are willing to believe.
.Your people concocted that plan, it's not any theory, although it is a conspiracy. I'll commend you on something though - the fact that you bothered at all to watch the hearing and even commented. The main problem with the left is being a low-information voter. I challenge you to go through the comments and see for yourself how many comments are from the left. There are precious few. This is the evidence that not many leftists even go to the trouble to educate themselves on any of the issues. You guys typically have no clue what you're even defending.
Maybe if you had any clue what you were talking about and stop listening to nonsense you wouldn’t sound like a complete idiot.
1
-
@theengineer2827 obviously, are you surprised that immigration law would be applicable to immigration?
I’m not surprised at all, out of the two of us I’m the only one who has bothered to read and learn our laws. You are still making them up in your head as you go.
You commented that the news, etc we consume leaves out facts. Please, do tell, what facts are we missing? I challenge you to provide something I'm not aware of, as the truth of the matter is if you rely on MSM, the Times or Post you've been gaslit with propaganda. In other words you've been fed lies.
You wouldn’t understand the truth if I gave it to you.
All probably so. And then there's the lying by omission; the vast majority of true info is kept from you and so when you finally get wind of it, it's from an informed conservative and because you didn't hear it from Rachel Maddow you think it's a lie. I challenge you to find one example of something you're aware of that I'm not. Or, I'll let you pick and hot topic - your choice, any at all to debate me on.
Anything on immigration law as you clearly do not have any clue as to any of it. That’s already proven. I prove it every day because I know what you know about the border and you don’t know anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KathyHales-vm6qk “According to former officials in the Obama administration, the standard for a border crisis was 1,000 attempted crossings a day. Who was on the team that set that standard?
There is no cap on asylum if that is what you are asking. There is a finite amount of people they can process per day at check points, but there is no cut off for those crossing between check points. But yes that does sound about like the correct figure if you look at apprehension rates during the Obama years. Not sure of the relevance of that statement.
President Joe Biden—then vice president—and Alejandro Mayorkas, then deputy secretary, and now secretary, of homeland security. When the Trump administration ended, the U.S. was deporting more people than were illegally coming into the country.
Yes under Trump republicans were undermining our asylum laws and denying them access under our laws and treaty obligations. That undermining of our laws is what caused the current crisis.
In less than a month under Biden, the number of people illegally coming into the country is more than 6,000 per day—that’s six times the crisis level as set by the Obama team.”
When Biden came into office border crossings had been at a record level for 4 months strait, and we continued to be under those policies that created this crisis, until recently. Policy put in place by republicans, and Republicans fighting in court to keep those policies. As I have already exolained.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority use to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation
That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.. .Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beckyhoyt4244 "What is Title 42 and what does it mean for immigration at the southern border?"
"Title 42 was created to address public health and social welfare and grants the government the ability to take emergency action in numerous ways, including to “stop the introduction of communicable diseases.” While the code has been in place for decades, it was used widely beginning in March 2020 by the administration of then-President Donald Trump in order to regulate border crossings under the premise of increased COVID-19 precautions.
The Trump administration used Title 42 to “essentially to override immigration law that allowed people to ask for asylum after entering illegally and said we could send them back” across the border, arguing that taking migrants into custody in federal facilities would create more of a public health risk, Theresa Cardinal Brown with the Bipartisan Policy Center told the PBS NewsHour’s Nicole Ellis in a conversation.
When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked Title 42 at the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020, it gave border patrol agents the authority to expel migrants to their home country or the country they were last in, which was often Mexico.
Since 2020, there have been more than 2 million expulsions of migrants by U. S. Customs and Border Protection at the southern border using Title 42. This is due, in part, to recidivism: people trying to cross the border illegally, getting caught and sent back before trying again. Cardinal Brown says recidivism rates are higher than we’ve seen in “many, many decades. And we do believe that Title 42 was one of the reasons why we saw people trying multiple times, [which] increased the numbers.”
Bypassing the asylum process and sending migrants back to Mexico without due process immediately after their arrival to the U.S. didn’t deter them from attempting to cross or re-cross the U.S.-Mexico border in many cases, in part because “it pushed people back out of the country without any consequence to future immigration applications.”
Many people arriving at the southern border are “hoping for help and protection. Legally, they may not qualify for asylum, but that level of desperation is something that we can’t simply rely on punitive and deterrent measures to reduce,” she added.
The sheer numbers of people crossing the southern border have also affected how border officials do their jobs and prompted advocates and local communities to highlight insufficient resources there.
Border officials want to see “a policy from Washington that they believe will really address the work that they have been challenged to do, which is essentially taking people who are seeking asylum and having to care for them, take them in, deal with humanitarian issues and families and kids in facilities that are not structured for that,” Cardinal Brown said.
Local officials and advocates on the ground have done their best to manage the flow of people, but are ultimately “hoping the federal government will kind of reimburse them some of those moneys and say, hey, this is a federal problem, but these localities have had to deal with it and the federal government needs to come in and help us manage this,” Cardinal Brown said.
The Biden administration’s initial attempts to end the use of Title 42 at the border in 2022 stalled after a group of states sued, taking the case to the Supreme Court. The high court agreed to hear the case, but is requiring the government to keep Title 42 in place in the meantime.
1
-
@beckyhoyt4244 El Paso tIMES
What is Title 42, when does it end, how does it impact US-Mexico border? What to know
Since March 2020, the U.S. has used its authority under the Title 42 public health law to rapidly expel migrants and, in some cases, suspend the right to seek asylum under U.S. law and international treaty.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under the Trump administration invoked Title 42 shortly after the coronavirus outbreak. Its purpose was to prohibit border control agencies from holding migrants in "congregant settings," like holding stations, where COVID-19 could spread rapidly. In effect, though, Title 42 gave the government the power to rapidly expel any migrant, without giving them an opportunity to make a case for staying in the country legally, including to seek asylum.
There have been multiple legal challenges to the policy.
On Dec. 19, the Supreme Court blocked a plan by the Biden administration to lift Title 42 restrictions on Dec. 21, as ordered by a lower court. On Dec. 27, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in February on whether 19 Republican-led states, including Texas, can challenge a lower-court ruling that ordered the Biden administration to lift Title 42. But the Supreme Court canceled the case in February after the Biden administration said it would end the nation's COVID-19 emergency order, effectively ending the Title 42 expulsions authority and rendering the arguments moot.
The CDC officially rescinded the policy a year ago, in April 2022, saying it was "no longer necessary" after "considering current public health conditions and an increased availability of tools to fight COVID-19."
What is Title 42?
The name refers to Title 42 of the U.S. Government Code established July 1, 1944. The law grants federal authorities the power to deny entry of people and products into the country to limit the spread of a communicable disease.
The Trump administration invoked the authority in March 2020 at the outset of the pandemic, and the Biden administration has continued to use Title 42 expulsions as a method of border control.
"Title 42 is not an immigration authority, and the order has been used to supersede federal law at the border ‒ which is under Title 8 of the U.S. Code ‒ and abrogate legal rights that have been guaranteed to arriving migrants for decades," according to an explainer published by the nonpartisan National Immigration Forum.
How is the Title 42 border policy used?
The Border Patrol has applied Title 42 differently in different border regions, depending on the resources available and the demographics of migrant groups. Enforcement of the order also varied under the Trump and Biden administrations.
Under the policy, migrants who cross between ports of entry can be picked up by Border Patrol, processed and expelled ‒ sometimes within hours. Title 42 has been applied both to those migrants who seek to evade border agents as well as those who turn themselves in to the Border Patrol to seek asylum.
The Border Patrol's ability to expel unauthorized migrants under Title 42 has been limited by which migrants Mexico is willing to accept, and how many, at different points along the border. The rate of Title 42 expulsions also can be influenced by the demographic makeup of who is crossing where.
Migrants from Mexico, Central American nations, Cuba and Venezuela can be expelled to Mexico under an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Others, including Haitians, have been expelled to their countries of origin unless they have legal documents to reside in Mexico, in which case they can be sent back to Mexico.
Border agencies expelled unaccompanied migrant children for a time under the order during the Trump administration, but the Biden administration stopped the practice.
In El Paso, the expulsions have taken the form of the Border Patrol walking migrants to the top of an international bridge and instructing them to walk south into Juárez. In some cases, the Border Patrol's El Paso Sector transfers migrants for expulsion at border crossings in other parts of Texas and in Arizona.
How many migrants have been expelled?
Since the start of the Title 42 policy, the Border Patrol has expelled migrants nearly 2.8 million times, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Title 42 allows for quick returns without repercussion, and that has encouraged some migrants to try again and again. Multiple crossings by migrants surged after the order went into effect.
In El Paso, the Border Patrol has leaned heavily on Title 42, where 63% of Border Patrol encounters have resulted in a Title 42 expulsion over the life of the policy, according to CBP. Between January and March, between two-thirds and 73% of encounters each month have resulted in expulsion.
Mexico permits Title 42 expulsions at some, but not all, of its border crossings.
Across the Southwest border, the use of Title 42 expulsions is much lower. From January to March, between one-third and 36% of encounters resulted in expulsion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42. Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Madlad000 This was written by Rodney Scott while chief of US Border Patrol. He's one of the republican witnesses lying in this hearing.
"U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265, ·' ... suspension of entries and imports from designated
places to prevent spread of communicable diseases ... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel
restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this
timeframe. During this time, Border Patrol Agents will rely on their training and experience in detecting, apprehending and determining whether persons are subject to the CDC order, including but not limited to the following considerations: physical observation, use of sensors and technology, physical indicators and tracking techniques, information from third-parties, and deductive techniques.
The threat of COVID-19 continues to increase globally at an unprecedented rate. As part of the whole of government response to the pandemic crisis, the USBP's role in preventing the virus from spreading further into the United States is critical."
1
-
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
MEMORANDUM FOR: All Chief Patrol Agents
All Directorate
FROM: Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countries or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 during this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy thst Homan heled to create on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary Vs Trump, It's the court case that reversed Trumps zero tolerance policy on requiring asylum seekers to use a port of entry or face jail and separations thst Homan is lying about. Trump attempted to put a stay on this reversal that was denied. Page 19-21 of that decision.
"Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.”
Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jhall100 There is no program in the state of California giving free homes, or cash to buy them, to immigrants in the state illegally.
Claims to the contrary originate from a misinterpretation of a bill that passed the state legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 1840 would have modified an existing state program called California Dream for All.
This program allows certain Californians to apply for a lottery, the winners of which would receive a loan from the state to go toward a down payment and closing costs on a home. The loan can be worth up to 20 percent of the home’s value, capped at $150,000.
Recipients pay back the loan when they eventually sell the house. Interest is 20 percent of the home’s increase in value.
To be eligible for the lottery under the current law, applicants must meet all federal loan requirements, which include verifying legal residency and taxpayer status. In addition, they have to be first-time home buyers, first-generation home buyers, and fall under a certain income cap that varies by county.
According to the agency that administers the program, the California Finance Housing Agency, California Dream for All helped 2,182 people buy homes in its first year.
Assembly Bill 1840 proposed to make it so otherwise eligible applicants “shall not be disqualified by the agency solely based on the applicant’s immigration status.” In other words, even if they are in the country illegally, they would be eligible to participate in the lottery for one of these loans.
But the bill did not remove any of the other requirements to be eligible for a loan, such as having a Social Security or taxpayer ID number.
In his veto of the bill, Newsom said “Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.”
1
-
1
-
@bobbylacy2374 We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Remain in Mexico was still in place last year and it was doing nothing to secure the border. Catch and release was never stopped by Trump and was not reinstated by anyone, it is title 8 USC 1225 of our INA laws that have been in place for 40 years.
Harris is not border czar she has never been she is not in charge of immigration laws or immigration policy.
The Right has talked about removing or reducing our safety net for decades. To claim you want to lower the amount of tax dollars on immigrates to use them on US citizens is just not true.
The Senate border bill was the most restrictive bill and had everything the GOP wanted. HR2 did nothing to change the law.
There was not one thing he said that was honest or truthful.
He's claiming that the white house needs to and should use executive action to ignore our immigration laws instead of saying congress needing to act to change the law.
He's trying to equate separating children from those committing crimes to Trumps policy of snatching children form legal asylum seekers.
There is no program in the state of California giving free homes, or cash to buy them, to immigrants in the state illegally.
Claims to the contrary originate from a misinterpretation of a bill that passed the state legislature but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Assembly Bill 1840 would have modified an existing state program called California Dream for All.
This program allows certain Californians to apply for a lottery, the winners of which would receive a loan from the state to go toward a down payment and closing costs on a home. The loan can be worth up to 20 percent of the home’s value, capped at $150,000.
Recipients pay back the loan when they eventually sell the house. Interest is 20 percent of the home’s increase in value.
To be eligible for the lottery under the current law, applicants must meet all federal loan requirements, which include verifying legal residency and taxpayer status. In addition, they have to be first-time home buyers, first-generation home buyers, and fall under a certain income cap that varies by county.
According to the agency that administers the program, the California Finance Housing Agency, California Dream for All helped 2,182 people buy homes in its first year.
Assembly Bill 1840 proposed to make it so otherwise eligible applicants “shall not be disqualified by the agency solely based on the applicant’s immigration status.” In other words, even if they are in the country illegally, they would be eligible to participate in the lottery for one of these loans.
But the bill did not remove any of the other requirements to be eligible for a loan, such as having a Social Security or taxpayer ID number.
In his veto of the bill, Newsom said “Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
East Bay Sanctuary vs Trump. Page 21 of the federal courts decision when they reversed Trumps policy of separating children from asylum seekers who crossed the border between check points. "Congress’s determination that place of entry not be disqualifying to an application for asylum is consistent with the treaty obligations underlying §1158’s asylum provisions. Congress enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, including 8 U.S.C. §1158, “to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, to which the United States acceded in 1968.” Because the Protocol is not “self-executing,” it “does not have the force of law in American courts.” Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 783 (9th Cir. 2009). Nonetheless, it provides “a useful guide in determining congressional intent in enacting the Refugee Act.” Id.(citation omitted); see also Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. at 436-37.Of particular relevance here, Article 31of the Protocol provides: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of [A]rticle 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.19 U.S.T. at 6275 (emphasis added).Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent. The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process. The Rule reaches the opposite result by adopting a categorical bar based solely “[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.” Inadmissible aliens are generally placed in full removal proceedings"
§1158. Asylum (a) Authority to apply for asylum (1) In general Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title...
1
-
@657spy How am I lying about facts that are easy to find by looking them up on the Border patrol website? You can find the memo sent out to border agents by Trumps border cheif Rodney Scott.
Rodney S. Scot Chief
U.S Border Patrol
SUBJECT: 42 U.S. Code Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and specifically the United States Border Patrol (USBP), are supporting the U.S. Government's response to the COVID-19 virus.
Effective March 21, 2020 at 0001 hrs EST, USBP will exercise authorities derived under
U.S. Code Title 42, Section 265,·'... suspension of entries and imports from designated places to prevent spread of communicable diseases... " as laid out in the attached Operation Order Capio. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the Authority of the Public Health Service Act, has directed CBP to prohibit the introduction of certain persons into the United States who, due to the existence of COVID-19 in countties or places from which persons are traveling, create a serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.
While operating under this authority, USBP will use Title 42 authority to immediately expel any individual encountered attempting to enter the United States in violation of travel restrictions. USBP will only apply Titles 8 and 19 authorities to subjects who are not amenable to expulsion under Title 42, or would otherwise be considered a high risk for the population (e.g., aggravated felons, relations to terro1ism, agent assaults, etc.). Watch commander approval is required for any authority used outside of Title 42 dw·ing this timeframe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@keithkinkelaar3334 We had a 11 year decline in southern border crossing to the lowest point in 50 years prior to Trump and his polices. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled the number of people crossing the southern border to 977,000. He only saw a reduction for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid, before it went back to a 20 year monthly high in October of 2020. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42.
Title 42 suspended title 8 laws and authority used to deter and penalize illegal border crossing. The Right was using it to undermine legal asylum under 8 US code 1158. It also suspended 8 US code 1325; the misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty for crossing the border illegally. And 8 US code 1326; stiffer penalties for crossing the border after deportation That left out any legal penalty or deterrent for those crossing and stopped legal asylum, with few exceptions under title 42. Makes it difficult to enforce immigration laws when Republicans are fighting in court to undermine our legal enforcement. With title 42 suspending enforcement many immigrants re-crossed multiple times causing apprehension numbers to be inflated. The current rate of multiple returns was about 40% of border crossers.
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children, Remain in Mexico, Title 42. All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years. Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. And the Right wing base just does not understand our law. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Harris was never appointed as border czar. There are no 85000 missing children and no they cannot use their drivers license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right-wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right-wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers that Homan continues to defend, remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To cross our border illegally for the first time is a misdemeanor that carries a civil offense US code 1325. That person or family group has to be processed and then deported. That way when immigrants try and cross again they fall under US code 1326, that carries stronger penalties as a deterrent.
Title 42 removes penalties under those laws. It's being used to undermines our legal asylum laws and just deports immigrants after processing. With no penalty system in place under title 42, this has caused more border returns who do not face penalties that they would face under normal immigration law. It also means apprehension numbers accounted for are not accurate. Current rate of returns is above 40%
US code 1158 is our asylum law, that the Right wants to ignore and undermine. It allows an immigrant to cross our border legally and request asylum, just as if they were at a check point. The Right has lied about it, ignored it, removed context and omitted it from their new reports, and Trumps policies criminalized it in violation of US immigration law, with his child separation policy. That policy on asylum seekers was removed in federal court. This is the 40 year asylum laws the Right refer to as “Open Borders”.
Remain in Mexico, forces legal asylum seekers who have used a port of entry and have passed a creditable fear interview to remain on the Mexican side of the border. US law says they are to remain in the US, US code 1158 section 1125. This law the Right calls catch and release. Due to restriction at check points it is easier to be granted asylum by crossing between check points. Especially under Trump's hard line policies. It also forces legal asylum seekers to wait in Mexico at the hands of cartels and traffickers, causing more suffering for legal asylum seekers.
Unaccompanied minors that are apprehended are automatically entered into our asylum process. They have to be transported out of CBP hands within 72 hours to family services, a sponsor, or family in country. Many on flights to US cities as per law in every administration including Trumps.
Single adults are still all placed in deportation proceeding under title 42. They are responsible for the increased repeat offenders under title 42 lack of penalty. Title 42 is being used to ignore our Immigration laws and treaty obligations for asylum. They should be allowed to request asylum and go through the process to qualify. Due to the number of immigrants neither side (in leadership) want's it removed.
Family units entry depends on the title 42 restrictions and asylum request and along with how they entered. They can be deported or put into our asylum process.
The Mexican government changing laws in areas on the border that can't handle the influx of refuges due to Trumps remain in Mexico policy. Those who are not Mexican nationals, that we apprehend in one area on the border have to be transported to another area or city on the border to be deported.
Due to the increased number at the border we have to transport some to CBP at our northerner border for processing.
All of that caused our working system, that saw a 17 year decline in southern border crossings to the lowest point in 50 years, prior to Trump and his policies. By 2019 Trumps policies doubled that number to 977,000. The highest in 20 years. It was only reduced for the first 9 months of 2020 due to covid. By October of 2020 it was back to a monthly 20 year high and it has remain a 20 year high and increasing ever since.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On February 2, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order that called for the development of a Root Causes Strategy.
Since March, Vice President Kamala Harris has been leading the Administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. She has worked with bilateral, multilateral, and private sector partners, as well as civil society leaders, to help people from the region find hope at home. This complements work done throughout the U.S. government over the last six months to learn lessons from prior efforts and to consult with a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of this strategy.
Today, the Biden-Harris Administration is releasing the Root Causes Strategy—a core component of our Administration’s efforts to establish a fair, orderly, and humane immigration system. This Strategy identifies, prioritizes, and coordinates actions to improve security, governance, human rights, and economic conditions in the region. It integrates various U.S. government tools, including diplomacy, foreign assistance, public diplomacy, and sanctions.
Implementation of the Strategy will rely on the expertise of a wide range of U.S. departments and agencies, with support from governments in and outside the region, civil society, the private sector, multilateral organizations, international financial institutions, and the U.S. Congress. These partnerships will bolster the impact of the Strategy through informing programmatic interventions, leveraging political will, and mobilizing necessary resources. The U.S. government will coordinate a place-based approach, targeting those areas where migrants are most likely to come from.
The Strategy is organized into five pillars:
Pillar I: Addressing economic insecurity and inequality;
Pillar II: Combating corruption, strengthening democratic governance, and advancing the rule of law;
Pillar III: Promoting respect for human rights, labor rights, and free press;
Pillar IV: Countering and preventing violence, extortion, and other crimes perpetrated by criminal gangs, trafficking networks, and other organized criminal organizations; and
Pillar V: Combating sexual, gender-based, and domestic violence.
The Vice President and the Administration have already taken action – notable accomplishments include:
Addressing immediate humanitarian needs including vaccines. On April 26, Vice President Harris announced $310 million in urgent relief to help address the acute factors of migration, including from hurricanes, the pandemic, and drought caused by climate change. To date, we have allocated over $250 million of the total funds, reaching over two million people. We also provided over 10 million COVID vaccine doses to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.
Countering corruption and democratic backsliding. Vice President Harris has been direct and unwavering in highlighting the problems of corruption, the need for reforms, and the vital importance of demonstrating commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence, human rights, and a strong civil society—including during her bilateral meeting in Guatemala. Working with the Department of Justice, the Vice President launched an Anticorruption Task Force that will include U.S. prosecutors and law enforcement experts to investigate and prosecute corruption cases with a nexus in the United States and the region.
Addressing security concerns of mutual interest. Vice President Harris launched Anti-Migrant Smuggling Task Forces in both Mexico and Guatemala and secured commitments to increase border enforcement. She reached an agreement with the Mexican government to restart the high-level dialogue focused on the trafficking of weapons and drugs.
Internationalizing our efforts. The Vice President has said, “The United States cannot do this work alone.” She has reached out to international partners to highlight the need for increased support for Central America and secured commitments from a number of countries. She successfully encouraged the United Nations to develop a regional Humanitarian Response Plan to mobilize international donor support for the region.
Working with the private sector. On May 27, Vice President Harris launched a Call to Action for the private sector to make new commitments in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to expand economic opportunities. The initial group of 12 companies and organizations committed to helping over 13 million people, offered to provide $750 million in resources, and established a non-profit organization to support economic development efforts in the region – The Partnership for Central America. These initial commitments will provide financial services to small business owners, internet access and digital banking to rural communities, housing for low-income families, and reduced barriers to higher education. Since the launch, over 150 companies and organizations have expressed interest in joining the Call to Action.
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Due to false claims of voter fraud, asylee’s not showing up for court, criminal activity, and just right wing claims used to breed hate. The Right has unilaterally decided to undermine legal asylum, as they feel it’s a loophole in the law. And have dubbed it as an open border policy and fed that buzz word to a right wing base who have no understanding of immigration laws. Trumps zero tolerance policy to separate children of legal asylum seekers, Remain in Mexico to deny asylum protections inside the US, and Title 42 to stop all legal asylum at the border under title 8 authority (with some exceptions after Biden took office). All attempts to stop legal asylum under US laws that have been in place for over 40 years (title 8 USC 1158). Yet now using it to trigger a base that is now openly full of hate on immigrants and this hate is now fed by GOP governors feeding off of that for votes from GOP supporters who immoral views support separating children from parents as a deterrent, use of lethal force, lying to immigrants to ship them to dem cities to stick it to libs, incarceration, and placing them in the hands of traffickers. All because of immigrants who may or may not have violated a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. Trumps immoral policies were violating US law by snatching children from legal asylum seeks as a deterrent. Courts overturned that policy that the Right still supports and defends. Harris was never appointed as border czar, by Biden. There are no 85000 missing children, and no these immigrants cannot use their driver’s license to vote. The Right does nothing but lie.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1