Comments by "Scott Farner" (@scottfarner5100) on "VIRAL MOMENT: Tom Homan—Trump's Border Czar Choice—Clashes With AOC Over Family Separations" video.

  1. That's a lie.
    9
  2. Neither is the low informed Right wing base, and she is correct.
    9
  3. 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
  4.  @lordxidious2739  Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country. Learn our laws before talking out your ars about what you think you know.
    4
  5. You mean she was correct he lied and you have no clue what they are talking about
    3
  6. @traceler  ahe was annoyed with his constant lying about asylum process that is common knowledge for everyone except the low informed Right wing base. This clip is from 2018, try learning our laws.
    3
  7.  @WascallyWabbity  First you would have to have a clue what our laws are, so stop trying to sound smart when you don't have a clue wtf you are talking about. You are 6 years late to this conversation, without doing any research at all.
    3
  8. No we don't separate children from parents who follow laws, unless you are a republican.
    3
  9.  @JefePanteraAzul  I said is that the right wing base is not mentally equipped to have this conversation and that is easy to see. I never said she was full of it, I said she was correct
    3
  10.  @ThinRedLine_Matt  Because the legal expert who speaks before Homan and explains the asylum process (that the right leaves out of these clips), then Homan lied about the legal process that is what she is expressing frustration over, not your guess bases on your inability to understand the conversation.
    2
  11. They didn't break the law try learning it.
    2
  12. @tylerlewis9984  you also seem to leave out the fact that if their asylum claim was being denied due to the third country exception, that it still would not require or allow under US laws to penalize them for crossing and making the request by changing them with a crime.
    2
  13. @tylerlewis9984  when are Republicans going to realize that helping to create jobs in those countries benefit the US
    2
  14. @coreyczech  stop being the enemy. But you're right I should stop Reading our laws and support a dictator who has no respect for our laws or constitutional separation of powers. I should become a drone like you with low morals and little knowledge of what is going on in the world.
    2
  15.  @johnhoran9840  When an unaccompanied minor is apprehended CBP has 72 hours to turn them over to family services who must quickly find family or a sponsor to take that child. Once that child has been turned over to that family or sponsor that ends the government’s responsibility to that child. The Government does make a 30 day check in call to those children or sponsor. The child and sponsor are not required to take or return the call. The government reported during a short period of time that a percentage of calls went unanswered. A reporter took that percentage against the total number of unaccompanied minors’ apprehensions and came up with that bogus number of children who the government lost contact with. The Right decided to change that wording from lost contact to missing children then conflated it with the story of minor children working.
    2
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. She is 10% correct, easy to learn by actually reading our laws.
    1
  19. Exposed Trumps immoral policy that Honan was defending. It was layervremoved in federal court.
    1
  20.  @Count990  you realise that this separation policy was reversed in federal court after this hearing, and she was 100% correct, and he's lying to defend a Trump.
    1
  21. Asylum is legal and they cannot be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country. Crossing the borer illegally is a federal misdemeanor or that carries a civil penalty. There should not be separations for asylum seekers or non asylum seekers. The Right has no moral compass.
    1
  22. That's a good example of what the GOP does. §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
  23. What is it about these Trump supporters always lying about our immigration laws and showing they have no moral compass while they support a policy to snatch children from legal asylum seekers, in a policy that was in violation of US law and reversed in federal court 6 years ago? Learn our laws and find a moral compass.
    1
  24. §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
  25. 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
  26. She is qualified enough to have common knowledge that asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country. While the Right uses this clip to misinform it's base on that 40 year old law for the past 6 years.
    1
  27. 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
  28. asylum seekers can legally cross our border without penalty and request asylum . Trumps policy that Homan is defending was in violation of our laws and treaty obligations, it was reversed in federal court about 6 years ago.
    1
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. How does the low informed Right not understand the word legal? §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
  32.  @David-lr1mo  yes it's called doing independent research and knowing how to find facts, instead of just parroting puppet masters and being completely ignorant of laws that are common knowledge and have existed for 50 years.
    1
  33. 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
  34.  @calvache66  LOL And the law that you never read and the courts decision that I posted clearly say different. Point of entry is irrelevant to our laws for asylum seekers. Second a violation of 1325 is a federal misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. There should be no separations for that violation. There is no invasion just the GOP lying about the laws and undermining legal asylum.
    1
  35. I love how the Right can ignore and dismiss facts about laws when none of you have bothered to read them and concreate facts of our laws are provided to you.
    1
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. @aaronrankin2376  under Trumps hardline poicies that was not easy to do at a port of entry when they only those that can be processed in a single day are allowed access. From 2020 to mid 2024 we dud not have am asylum process for many under title 42. Some are traveling where the end up at the border and there isn't s port and a birder agent will wait at these areas and collect groups of asylum seekers and bus them to a port or detention center to be processed. Trumps policies were to deny all asylum protections regardless of their claim .
    1
  39. @aaronrankin2376  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.
    1
  40. @shadowkhan422  it doesn't apply if those countries are not a safe haven country there are only 2 in this hemisphere. Under our laws it requires a treaty with that country. That section of title 8 usc 1158 was suspended for the most part for 2020 to mid 2023 due to title 42. Both Trump and Biden used thst exception in their immigration policies prior to and after title 42, and federal courts stopped the use of it both times.
    1
  41. @shadowkhan422  also if they had the ability to enforce that exception it would result in a denial of their asylum claim and nit criminal charges and children being separated by Trumps immoral policies.
    1
  42.  @nido3238  Trump can't do that and will not take office until January learn how government works.
    1
  43.  @ArmadilloOpera  Thats a lie, and has been proven a lie many times.
    1
  44.  @DavidJames0322  CBP Website you can find the order from Trumps border chief on how to carry out title 42. To answer your second question it depends on who was in office. Trump made it impossible to request asylum between ports of entry or at them under tiler 42. Federal courts lifted restrictions on children under Biden.
    1
  45.  @WascallyWabbity  KNew what that you have no information at all about the border? I already know that.
    1
  46.  @idc0808  Asylum is legal. Do we charge people with a crime and separate their child, when that person is following the law? And because you think that person is using a loophole in the law that you don't like, we need to charge him with a crime and separate his child. This is what you guys started in your ignorance of what your puppet masters are doing. Do I need it to be simpler for you to uinderstand?
    1
  47.  @windowsVD  No completely true. Trump did not such thing. Border crossings are measured through apprehensions during the federal government’s fiscal calendar year, from 10/01-9/30. 2016-2017 was under Obamas last fiscal year budget. This gives the new administration time to create new laws and budget requests for the second year in their administration. This is how informed voters look at policy we don’t blindly give a president credit for something created by the previous administration or blame a new administration for the past administration failed policies. That is a low informed Right-wing belief. Like Trump taking credit for a job report in February of 2017. There was no spike in border crossings under Obama, there have been fluctuation up or down by 100k year to year, but crossings were in decline for over a decade. 2019 was not just a few months that were increased that stabilized in August. October- January were all 20k more than previous years. February was 40k over. March through June wee 50K over previous years. July was 40 k over, August shrank to just 20k over the previous year. Wow it stabilized on September 1 month out of 12 for 2019. Obama’s last 4 years was well below Trumps 4 year. How is my claim about covid false? Covid and title 42 were the only things that reduced numbers for 2020. What policies under Trump were working, when border crossing in 2020 were back at record levels from October 2020 to January 2021, before Biden took office? What policies were working? Show me what month in 2020 that was doing better than 2014-2016, prior to April and the misuse of title 42 to deny asylum claims introduced in March. What policies did Trump pass prior to 2018 that showed improvement on the previous administration policies?
    1
  48.  @windowsVD  yes due to a right wing claims of a loophole in the law, the Right felt justified to unilaterally undermine our immigration laws and ignore our constitutional separation of powers to stop legal asylum. In the Rights arrogance they caused the border crisis, because they felt they could do a better job and they were wrong. They also proved that the Right has no moral compass due to their treatment and rhetoric to immigrants. And the Right has shown they have no interest in border security only power. All easy to prove.
    1
  49.  @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
  50.  @jeremyjones9467  Did you, because you are lying as 2019 doubled the number of people crossing the border. you need to be able to understand what you are looking at too. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration/fy-2019#:~:text=In%20Fiscal%20Year%20(FY)%202019,entry%20on%20our%20Southwest%20Border.
    1
  51.  @jeremyjones9467  LOL net negative immigration that's a good one. Border crossings are calculated by apprehensions during the federal governments fiscal calendar year from 10-01-09/30. 2017 would have started under Obama's last fiscal year budget. Trump did not create any new immigration policies until 2018, that saw a 100k increase from border crossing in 2018. by 2019 the number of apprehensions doubled after Trumps policies were put in place. It came down in 2020 due to the covid a out break and the use of title 42 around March. By October of 2020 border crossing were back to record numbers of apprehensions for the beginning of fiscal year. It remined i at record levels for 5 months prior to Biden taking office. Biden took office at the end of January 2021 border crossing were at record levels under Trumps failed policies. Border crossing continued to increase under title 42 expedited removal with no penalty in place for those recrosisng the border under tile 42. That the GOP continued to fight and keep in place.
    1
  52.  @windowsVD  LOL yes to a low informed Trump supporter giving Trump credit for the lower border numbers in 2017 for just taking office and doing nothing makes sense, and our federal government fiscal year calendar for 2017 started in October of 2016. Border crossings are calculated by apprehensions during the federal governments fiscal calendar year from 10-01-09/30. 2017 would have started under Obama's last fiscal year budget. Trump did not create any new immigration policies until 2018, 2018 saw a 100k increase from border crossing in 2017. By 2019 the number of apprehensions doubled after Trumps policies were put in place. It came down in 2020 due to the covid a out break and the use of title 42 around March. By October of 2020 border crossing were back to record numbers of apprehensions for the beginning of fiscal year. It remined i at record levels for 5 months prior to Biden taking office. Biden took office at the end of January 2021 border crossing were at record levels under Trumps failed policies. Border crossing continued to increase under title 42 expedited removal with no penalty in place for those recrosisng the border under tile 42. That the GOP continued to fight and keep in place.
    1
  53.  @windowsVD  Illegal crossings were already on the decline during the latter half of 2019 before COVID, so your claim that Trump's first term only ever saw a reduction because of COVID is demonstrably false. I said there was no evidence of Trumps policies brining down apprehension number as they were back to record levels far before Biden taking office. The issue was title 42.
    1
  54. All the BS you guys want to claim about Trumps immoral policies, when it is clear that border crossing were in decline for over a decade, before the ignorant and arrogant Right tried to fix it, by denying immigrants Rights under our laws and stopping policies that were working.
    1
  55. @jeremyjones9467  then you were not looking at the correct chart. It's not hard to find the correct numbers. What numbers did you find for 2019 as they are clearly shown on the chart as being 977k for that year?
    1
  56. @jeremyjones9467  an circle back. yes Obama's numbers were still lower than Trump. And Trumps policies that created the crisis under Biden. Way to remain willfully ignorant after being given context. 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.
    1
  57. @jeremyjones9467  what's Trump going to do differently? He already tried to "close the border" and that had the opposite effect , remember when you were clueless of what was going on and border crossing increased after his polices.
    1
  58.  @jeremyjones9467 Only if you are a low informed Trump supporter who believes that a president should be criticized or praised for what takes place during their time in office and not for the policies they create. Can you name an Obama policy that he created that caused border crossing to increase under Trump. Just because you are low informed cultist that will defend every failed policy by Trump doesn't make Biden responsible for actually coming into office and following existing immigration laws that the Right do not like.
    1
  59.  @jeremyjones9467  Yes because Trumps supporters have been supporting this clip for the past 6 years, even after federal courts reversed this immoral policy in 2019, as the Right wing puppets lost any moral compass and they are completely clueless of our laws and how the border got this way. All of you are.
    1
  60.  @jeremyjones9467  So what is Tom's job going to be as there is on no official position as border czar, and Trump already named a DHS secretary? Is his job just misinformation about our laws to the Right wing puppets?
    1
  61.  @jeremyjones9467  LOL you don't even know the difference between title 42 authority apprehensions and title 8 apprehensions. Repeating false claims from your puppet masters is not research. If there was any evidence to claim Trump did have net immigration it would be missing a lot of context to back up that claim.
    1
  62. What Trump and his policies did was to reduce legal immigration. They did nothing to reduce illegal immigration or secure the border. There arrogance had the opposite effect, and they lied to hide that from their base.
    1
  63.  @windowsVD  2019 apprehensions began in October of 2018 and ended in September of 2019. Every month had higher border crossing then previous years, with the exception of October and November of 2017. 2020 beginning in October of 2019 was still higher then previous years with the exception of 2017 and did not begin to go down until January when Covid was going on and then in March when Title 42 was enacted. No Trumps policies were not better they were still in place until mid 2013, Biden's policy was to follow and carry our laws passed by congress. You don't seem to have the ability to piece information together that doesn't fit your narrative. Apprehension numbers under Biden are all inflated due to title 42 that was still in place in 2023. as it was suspending title 8 enforcement for the most part and placing immigrants in expedited removal. Do you have the critical thinking to understand what that does to overwhelm the border?
    1
  64.  @jeremyjones9467  They don't like Tom because he's been lying for six years about Trumps immoral separation policy and feeding that to a right-wing base who have no moral compass or ability to learn our laws without a talking head lying to them about the process or our laws. He is a monster that helped Trump create an immigrant trafficking nightmare out of their failed policies, that the low informed Right wing base then blame the left for.
    1
  65. Homan is lying and defending Trumps immoral policy that was reviersed in federal court 6 years ago.
    1
  66. §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
  67. @danielkaiser8971  your side just completely lies and ignores our existing laws while the Right wing base and you sit in complete willful ignorance of facts in context and just parrot your puppet masters.
    1
  68.  @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
  69. Yes due to Trumps immoral policy that violated immigration law.
    1
  70. @TrumpMagus Yes because there are a lot of ignorant and easily manipulated fools who talk out their asr trying to act informed about something you have no understanding of, and then you vote on it because that's your cult.
    1
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. §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
  74. 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
  75. Immigrants crossing between checkpoints and requesting asylum is legal. Trumps immoral policies that violated US immigration law thst Homan is defending was the problem.
    1
  76. 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
  77.  @olddave4833  Yes that would be the book that reversed Trumps immoral policies that caused the border to fail.
    1
  78. No he just lied about the law.
    1
  79. 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
  80.  @guyjuprod  that's how the Right remains willfully ignonrt, all their information has to be spoon fed by a talking head.
    1
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. §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
  86. He's a lying monster that has defended Trumps immoral separation policy for several years. A policy that was in violation of US law.
    1
  87.  @JamaicaZ160R1793010A  for the past 40+ years.
    1
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. No he is lying about the law to fit a Right wing narrative and agenda. We have treaty obligations on asylum and refugee status. Those agreements mirror the laws we created, including the law that Homan is lying about in this clip. She clearly knows our asylum laws, have you read them?. "With this logic every illegal could claim to have a relative child and legally be illegal." that has nothing to do with the legal process, wtf are you talking about?
    1
  91. 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
  92. This clip is form 2019 under Trumps immoral separation policies. And the Right lied about 350k missing children.
    1
  93. Tom is a liar and Trumps separation policy was immoral and in violation of our laws. it was reversed 6 years ago. he reason for the separation policy was a deterrent to keep others from coming to our borders and legally requesting asylum
    1
  94. 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
  95. And no the kids were not lost under Dems.
    1
  96. §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
  97. No it didn't stop lying about things you know nothing about.
    1
  98.  @savaii4menow  Yes that would be Obama. We knew that when the low informed Right still thought his border policies bad, and were calling for a wall when border crossings were at the lowest point in 50 years.. Obama was following the law. So was Biden. Trumps policies were in violation of the 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.
    1
  99.  @savaii4menow  I remember Obama detaining unaccompanied minors and those caught with adults who had committed serious crimes. Trumps policy was to charge everyone who crossed between check points with a crime and separate their children. That included legal asylum seekers who can legally cross and request asylum without penalty. Get your facts strait.
    1
  100.  @savaii4menow  When Obama was being deporter in chief. Border crossings were in decline to the lowest point in 50 years. RINO's and Democrats were working on another bipartisan immigration reform bill that the far Right rejected again. They wanted to work on reducing the problem with Visa overstays. As that was the real issue. Trump and the Right were crying for a wall. And fiscally conservative republicans, who held majorities in the congress, were never going to pay for that funding. Then Trumps immoral immigration policies that unilaterally undermined US immigration laws started in 2018. That brings us to this clip of Homan defending one of those failed policies that was later reversed in federal court. Funny that never happened under "Obama's separation policy". Trump later wrote an executive order saying he would stop the searations, he then blamed it on congress and the wording of the law, even though he was the only president to use it. Biden later removed it completely.
    1
  101. Your pathetic enough to believe the lies told by your leadership when you have no clue what is going on. Trumps policy was snatching children from legal asylum seekers as a deterrent, in an immoral policy that was reversed in federal court before Trump denounced it and tried to blame his policy on everyone else.
    1
  102. When we create immigration laws that mirror international treaty to make those treaty obligations enforceable in our courts. Like we did with asylum about 50 years ago. Until your puppet master started calling them an open border policy. That is why this is common knowledge for everyone except the low informed Right wing base.
    1
  103. 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
  104. And the Right is acting as if all of them do not qualify prior to arriving at the border and making the request. That is why Trumps policy was in violation of our immigration laws and reversed after this hearing 6 years ago.
    1
  105. 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
  106. Wrong again
    1
  107.  @charleshunt7568  Yes he did it was his zero tolerance policy written in 2018. You are confusing detainment of children within our laws and legal responsibility with Trumps separation policy of legal asylum seekers. That's the part your puppet masters leave out, or you have no understanding of what asylum is.
    1
  108. You are conflating Obama following the Flores settlement with a zero tolerance policy clearly written by Trump in 2018 to charge immigrants requesting asylum through title 8 USC 1158, with a crime for violating tilt 8 USC 1325. 1325 is a federal misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. The request for asylum from immigrants crossing between check points were being denied and charges filed. When released their children were not reunited and lost in the process. This was why we had immigrants suing US tax payers for those "450k" settlement talks that the Right criticized Biden for having.
    1
  109. He's a liar. §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
  110. 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
  111. 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
  112. this is an 8 year old clip how is Biden responsible for it?
    1
  113. §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
  114. 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
  115. §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
  116. 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.
    1
  117. 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
  118. 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
  119. He already has just look sat the comments. They are all low informed completely ignorant of our laws and have no moral compass at all.
    1
  120. 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
  121. 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
  122.  @trentjacobs3957  Our laws allow an immigrant to cross our border at any point and request asylum and be allowed to go through that process, that has been the legal process for over 50 years. It was a process that was working just fine until the Trump administration and the far Right decided to unilaterally undermine our asylum laws, as they feel it’s a loophole. In their arrogance caused this border crisis and from there they just lied about everything else. If people are sneaking in to avoid detection, they are not asylum seekers. Stop treating everyone the same. It is also not legal for Trumps policies to deny immigrants the ability to request asylum. First was his immoral separation policy to charge legal asylum seekers with a crime. Then cut off access to asylum protections and forcing asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, leaving them in the hands of traffickers. Then title 42 misuse to deny immigrants a legal pathway to asylum through our ports of entry or between them. The rights agenda was to stop legal asylum. I would have to see details to your false claim about supreme court justices, to see the narrative your puppet masters fed you.
    1
  123. 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
  124. 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.
    1
  125. No that is what idiots hear, what she said is that asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border and requesting asylum and she is correct.
    1
  126. @donkeytime1704  the point of crossing between checkpoints is to be arrested and make the request for asylum. Immigrants are legally allowed to do that without penalty. For non asylum seekers the violation is a misdemeanor that carries a civil penalty. There should not be any separations at all. And to do it to asylum seekers is immoral and was in violation of US immigration law.
    1
  127.  @donkeytime1704  there was no risk of separation before Trumps policy that violated US law and international treaty. That policy was reversed in federal court 6 years ago after this hearing. Homan and the GOP continue to support this immoral policy that even Trump refused to own even after fighting for an appeal to keep it in place. Layer he created an executive order to stop his own policy of separations and then blamed Congress for his zero tolerance policy to snatch children as a deterrent. Then tax payers were sued by the parents of these children and the Right blamed Biden for having settlement negotiations with them. What interpretation can you offer in your research onbthe issue?
    1
  128. 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
  129. 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
  130. 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
  131. 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
  132. @TrumpMagus It only proves that facts no longer matter. Integrity doesn't matter. Morality doesn't matter. All that the Right stands for is sticking it to the Left and hating everyone that you want to blame for your problems.
    1
  133. @tylerlewis9984  point of entry for asylum is irrelevant. That should be common knowledge. It's clearly written in our treaty obligations under our laws and confirmed by our courts. The new "Border Czar", no such thing, is a lying sack of crap. Secondly you have never spoken to one of them nor have you spoken to all to determine who is qualified. Trumps lawyers made the same argument and lost that case. You me the third safe country exception embedded in title 8 usc 1158 that would have been suspended under title 42 from 2020 to mud 2023. The same execption that both Trump and Biden attempted to use prior and after title 42, that was stopped by a federal court under both Presidents. I'm 6 years ahead of you in researching, nice try.
    1
  134. 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
  135. @tylerlewis9984  T hose countries immigration system is just as overwhelmed as ours. They might have family here.
    1
  136.  @tylerlewis9984  Yeah right youtube is censoring everyones comments in real time that sounds like an intelligent comment. But yes the Right feels our asylum laws are a loophole in the INA laws. So the Right felt justified in unilaterally undermining legal asylum laws that have been in place for 50 years and call them an open border policy under Biden and fed that narrative ot to a low informed baase. The Right likes to leave out the vetting part of that process. Or the fact that border crossing were in decline before the Right pushed this agenda. 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
  137. @brucebanner3566  no it is not. What has happened is the Right has dismantled the working process and unilaterally undermine our immigration laws provide fit a right wing agenda causing our borders to be overwhelmed. Learn our immigration laws
    1
  138. @lisasmith767  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.
    1
  139. @CxXxBot  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.
    1
  140. @tylerlewis9984  this is your doing in your ignorance of what your puppet masters arrogance in trying to fix immigration.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.
    1
  141.  @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
  142.  @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
  143.  @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
  144. 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
  145.  @tbb_jsw1557  Learn our laws and the process and I don't care about your homosexual relationships keep them to your self and stop projecting them on others along with your ignorance of our laws.
    1
  146.  @namastewellness  §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
  147. 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
  148.  @tongpoo8985  She is absolutely correct and you have never read our immigration laws. Homan has been lying about this clip and our asylum laws for 6 years. This immoral policy that the low informed Right still supports was reversed in federal court in 2019. This clip is from 2018. Learn before talking out your ars about things you know nothing about.
    1
  149. @ 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
  150.  @FlowKio  I've been arguing with right wing airheads for years
    1
  151. @ 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
  152.  @Mix-we9pf  You have never bothered to even read an immigration law, stop being a puppet. The Right lies about every claim they make about the border.
    1
  153. 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
  154. When an unaccompanied minor is apprehended CBP has 72 hours to turn them over to family services who must quickly find family in the US or a sponsor to take that child. Once that child has been turned over to that family or sponsor, that ends the government’s responsibility to that child. The Government does make a 30 day check in call to those children or sponsor. The child and sponsor are not required to take or return the call. The government reported during a short period of time that a percentage of calls went unanswered. A reporter took that percentage against the total number of unaccompanied minors’ apprehensions and came up with that bogus number of children who the government lost contact with. The Right decided to change that wording from lost contact to missing children.
    1
  155. ​​@TrumpMagushe is lying to defend Trumps immoral policy. His separation policy was reversed in federal court.
    1
  156. 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
  157. Because that was a lie too.
    1
  158.  @johnhoran9840  Now prove it's true
    1
  159.  @johnhoran9840  Here is what is true Trumps immoral separation policy was snatching children from asylum seekers using the legal process, and they did lose those children and didn't reunite them.
    1
  160.  @johnhoran9840  How will it come to an end these are the same idiots who created the crisis. They will make the same mistakes they did last time and all of their policies will be reversed in federal court as they will violate existing law.
    1
  161.  @johnhoran9840  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.
    1
  162.  @johnhoran9840  It's your parties policies that you support that are causing the trafficking. Trump was the best thing to ever happen to human trafficking ring.
    1
  163.  @benjamin_hartman  Yes and there are still no missing children, just lies from the Right.
    1
  164. Difference being that it's legal for Asylum seekers to cross our borders and request Asylum without penalty. We do not separate children from people who follow laws just because the Right doesn't like the law.
    1
  165. Learn our asylum laws.
    1
  166. they were not, just another Right wing lie
    1
  167. §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
  168. classic Trump supporter defense: being completely clueless of our immigration laws and the legal process, trying to act informed.
    1
  169. 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
  170. 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
  171. Because the Right does nothing but lie about it. There is nothing the right has claimed about the southern border in over a decade that is not a lie.
    1
  172. there are no 330k missing children stop being so easily manipulated.
    1
  173. When an unaccompanied minor is apprehended CBP has 72 hours to turn them over to family services who must quickly find family in the US or a sponsor to take that child. Once that child has been turned over to that family or sponsor, that ends the government’s responsibility to that child. The Government does make a 30 day check in call to those children or sponsor. The child and sponsor are not required to take or return the call. The government reported during a short period of time that a percentage of calls went unanswered. A reporter took that percentage against the total number of unaccompanied minors’ apprehensions and came up with that bogus number of children who the government lost contact with. The Right decided to change that wording from lost contact to missing children.
    1
  174.  @tammyscott3706  speak for yourself, being spoon fed lies from your puppet masters is not research and you have done none at all.
    1
  175. Yes he's an immoral monster that lies about immigration laws to pander to Trumps supporters who have no moral compass and are clueless of immigration law.
    1
  176. 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
  177. Also under our asylum laws they can not be penalized charged with a crime and have their child separated.
    1
  178. 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
  179. 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
  180. 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
  181. What's impressive is howp low informed the Right wing base has become of asylum laws that are common knowledge for the rest of us. Asylum seekers cannot be penalized for crossing a border of a safe haven country.
    1
  182. 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
  183. 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.
    1
  184. And he is lying to manipulate the facts. §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
  185. 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
  186. What is disgusting is the Right wing base supporting an immoral separation policy that was in violation of our laws and reversed 6 years ago. Tom Homan is a lair
    1
  187. Yes he lies a lot and the right wing media has been over playing his old lies.
    1
  188. Tom is a lying sack of crap defending an immoral separation policy that was in violation of our laws and reversed in federal court 6 years ago. The Trump was denying asylum seekers the ability to request asylum through our existing laws. Asylum seekers can not be penalized for crossing the border of a safe haven country.
    1
  189. 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
  190. No Trumps child separation policy was used to deter legal asylum seekers from seeking protections under our laws. it had nothing to do with trafficking. Your puppet masters false narrative is a lie. Your party doesn't like the law because they feel its a loophole. So the Right felt justified in ignoring it
    1
  191. 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
  192. This is 6 years old
    1
  193. This is 6 years old he lied she was correct and courts revered this immoral policy in 2019.
    1
  194. It doesn't take experience to understand our asylum laws that are common knowledge for everyone except the Right wing base. §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
  195.  @Floridantea  Only a complete idiot would make that statement. Homan quoted the law, he just lied about who is exempt from it. The law did not allow murders and rapist, right wing base stupidity and ignorance of what your puppet masters were doing to undermine legal asylum is what let them through. 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 was a record high for 5 months straight before Biden took office. It has remained a 20 year high and increasing ever since under Trumps failed policies and Title 42 expedited removal.
    1
  196.  @abel3557  Crossing the border and making the request, is all that is needed to be put in front of an asylum agent to see if they qualify. The same way if they used a port of entry. If they do and pass a creditable fear interview they are allowed to stay, and if they qualify they can be bonded or paroled. If they do not qualify they are deported. At no point in that process are they to be charged with a crime and have their children separated, out of a Trump policy to deny asylum request based on rhetoric.
    1
  197. Replaying a six year old clip where Homan lies about our asylum laws and the separation policy under Trumps immoral policy that was reviersed in federal court.
    1
  198. 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
  199. 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
  200. §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
  201. 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
  202. 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