That’s an article about the UK.
Yes, I was completely aware of that. It’s just one example of how this process can be abused wherever it takes place.
Are asylum claimed based on each individual case? If so, how can anyone assume what asylum conditions exist for every single individual?
Also persecution doesn’t have to come from the government. There is current no requirement that it must be.
Here’s how it is articulated:
The applicant must have suffered persecution by a governmental actor, or by a non-governmental actor that the government is unable or unwilling to control. The government generally includes the police, the military, and government-run schools. The government, for the purposes of asylum law, also includes government-sponsored groups.
The role of government or lack thereof is explicit in asylum law. Furthermore, it has been articulated in other sources I’ve posted that implicit in asylum law is that there’s nowhere else in that country the person is safe. For example, say I (a US citizen) live in area where there’s a rough gang that threatens my life (I believe because of my race) if I don’t do X, Y and Z. Would you classify me as someone who meets the qualifications of an asylum seeker?
Interpreted broadly enough that means anyone who ever got picked on.
“Jimmy flicked his boogers on me.”
or
“In my country if you’re gay people make jokes about you and say bad things behind your back.”
2 Likes
It is important to include this as well:
either the victim of past persecution or you have a well-founded fear of future persecution. In the case of past persecution, you must prove that you were persecuted in your home country or last country of residence.”
The persecution must have been based on at least one of five grounds, either your:
race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
Simple example, the genocide of the Jewish people by the German government. First off, the majority of the phony asylum seekers coming across the border will freely admit when being interviewed that they are coming for supposed jobs, to have a better life, to flee poverty, etc. They are simply coached by the human smuggling cartels what to tell CBP when turning themselves in for the Biden Administration’s asylum game.
Articulated by whom? Where are you getting that from? Is that a regulation, statute, court cases or what?
Articulated in asylum law.
Which law. Can you link to the statute or provide a statute citation?
Here’s one source:
Ok. They do cite some sources on which they may have based their opinions. They do qualify what they say as not legal advice. I would not expect their opinions to be impartial, as this is how the organization describes its mission:
“Immigration Equality is the national leader in the field we pioneered: LGBTQ and HIV immigration rights. We work on both the personal and systemic levels to protect and uplift LGBTQ and HIV-positive immigrants and families.”
Here’s another:
The persecution should have come from either your country’s government or other authorities or groups that the government is unable to control, such as guerrillas, warring tribes or ethnic groups, or organized vigilantes.
The role of the government (or lack thereof) is explicit in asylum law. Furthermore the “persecution must have been based on at least one of five grounds: your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.”
Here’s this also:
An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that:
1. his treatment rises to the level of persecution;
2. the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and
3. the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.
Those stipulations, especially the part that says non-government, make it so asylum claims can have a fairly broad application.
What everyone should know by now and understand that one of the primary functions (if not the number 1 function) of the legal framework in the US is to enrich those (particularly lawyers) who are part of the legal profession! Asylum is no different because those in this profession absolutely want their share of this economic pie! I have no doubt that those in this legal niche have various relationships with each other and I’m sure that it’s economically beneficial that a fair degree of asylum claims are approved each year. The process has a fair degree of subjectivity and varies (potentially tremendously) on who the asylum judge is.
1 Like
I agree.
However the only way you remove the subjectivity of the claims is to stop asylum claims all together or change the law to extremely limit it… which the net effect would be eliminating asylum.
I’m not sure republicans or Dems want that
Not when you consider the second part, that the “persecution must have been based on at least one of five grounds: your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.” Also the persecution has to rise to a specific level. (Nonetheless, as I said before, it is indeed a subjective process and approval rates indeed vary depending upon who the asylum judge is.)
A good example of this is the genocide of the Jewish people by the German government. Again I’m still waiting for any explanation on exactly WHY are all these millions and millions of people are being targeted from well over 100 different countries and by WHOM from within those countries?
