Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "BREAKING NEWS: Republicans u0026 Dems Debate Mayorkas Impeachment Articles In Homeland Cmte | Part 1" video.
-
7
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
@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