Not so.
They are not refugees.
So would the cities they go to in the US.
Two points. We already know that most if not all the people coming from Central America are economic migrants if we are going by strict Asylum laws. Second as has been pointed out if the max quota is 30,000 then what obligation does the US have to try and adjudicate over a million claims?
Those caravan asylum seekers know more about laws then we do ourselves. They get legal advice & financial help every step of he way on what to say and how to say it. They are recycling children and ICE and DHS report seeing the same child in supposed family more then once. It’s hideous. And only Congress can fix the asinine asylum laws to STOP it.
1 Like
The U.S has a obligation to process everyone who step foot on U.S soil, setting up a camp in Mexico or even in other central counties would take the pressure off the border and DHS who have to house them.
again that is if your issue is caravans and you wish to solve that issue.
That is up to a judge.
Actually, it’s not.
And now you’ve answered your own incessant question about Trump and catch and release.
They are released pending meaning they need to show up at court where a Judge will determine their claim is valid or not.
like I said I though Trump ended catch and release.
Only if they appeal. The first determination is not made by a judge.
No, a judge did.
You want to show a law bad? Enforce it.
I think that most Democrat Politicians should be put in insane Asylums. lol.
There’s no Constitutional obligation for the United States to do this.
The asylum laws need to be changed. The immigration system needs to be reformed and updated. Unfortunately, that is not likely going to happen anytime soon.
How about strictly enforced? If it were applied by the letter of the law, how many people from Central or South America would fit into this:
To establish eligibility for asylum or refugee status, you must prove you are 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.
Proving this connection between the persecution and one of these five grounds is one of the most difficult parts of an application for asylee or refugee status—and it got more difficult in 2005, when the REAL ID Act added a requirement that one of the five grounds was or will be a “central reason” for your persecution.
What is happening now is that gender has been included as part of this:
Persecution may also in some cases be based on your gender. This has been applied to cultural practices such as female genital cutting or forced marriage. Lawyers have also been fighting for years to have domestic violence, honor killing, and trafficking (sexual or labor) recognized as bases for asylee status, particularly in cases where the police and government compound the problem by failing to protect the women or prosecute the perpetrators.
When you add gender well that then makes ANY woman potentially qualify for Asylum. Here is the full article:
