Just don't call it open borders

If so, it’s not a very good one, as demonstrated by the number of bogus fake claims.

Sure. But at least engage honestly, rather than post untruths about “things the left believes”.

What does the law say about people in the US illegally?


Is that “black-letter law” being strictly adhered to by the Biden Administration?

Personally I don’t view these as laws, which are much more about matters to be strictly enforced on one group by another, they are really international agreements. Here’s a good way to look at it:

From the link:

International refugee protection instruments present moral principles that, unfortunately, carry little legal weight and impose only limited, if any, constraints on states. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol8, among other instruments, constitute the cornerstone of refugee protection in the international system and impose a humanitarian obligation upon states. While they have been established with the aim of proper and effective refugee protection as well as resettlement, the states ultimately hold the upper hand in that regard. For example, Canada signed the convention 18 years after its adoption and implemented its obligations in 1976 (through the Immigration Act of 1976).9 States may take their time to utilize and reform refugee determination procedures and states’ compliance with these international frameworks is rather on a voluntary basis. In the majority of cases, it is the states rather than the UNHCR that implement procedures for vetting, admitting and resettling refugees onto their territories.10 During these procedures, states and their respective agencies may “dispute the identity of those claiming international protection, doubt the validity of their claims and fear that they are security risks.”11 It is the state that decides whom to admit and whom to deny entry and thus holds power over the determination procedure and the faith of those seeking asylum.

Ah, conservatives. You guys are adorable

Apparently you did not read anything else I posted? So here’s this again:

International refugee protection instruments present moral principles that, unfortunately, carry little legal weight and impose only limited, if any, constraints on states.

The reality is that laws are only as good as an entity’s desire and ability to ENFORCE them. Please detail what one countries enforcement mechanism will be on another country if they don’t like how that other country goes about granting or denying asylum claims?

That is not the law I refer to.

It doesn’t matter if you ‘view’ the law as real, it doesn’t matter what you think of international law, and an asylum request is not “magic words”.

It is U.S Law to acknowledge asylum requests.

Acknowledging does not mean allowing millions upon millions of foreign nationals’ entry into the interior of our country and especially when they are not fully vetted.


The Biden Administration is betting the farm that American citizens will not raise one finger to defend their border against the Administration’s ongoing and planned invasion of the United States.

I love when Dems bring up the “law” when it comes to immigration and illegal immigration. Dems don’t give two ■■■■■ about the laws they don’t like in this area:

I would love to know exactly how many laws regarding illegal immigrants and illegal immigration are strictly enforced???

Here’s another link detailing how this administration is continuing with its open border policies:


Regardless, that is the asylum law in this country. If you don’t like it, change it.

There’s a lot of people that agree with you.

US law requires asylum seekers to come through official ports of entry to apply with the officials at that border station. Coming across the border at any other spot is contrary to the law, i.e. a crime.


That is NOT the law. The law is as I just said … entry must be at an official station. And economic hardship is not a valid reason to be considered for asylum. This whole southern border crisis is due to the Biden Administration NOT following the law.

I am pushing back against the “magic words” scenario posited above.

Your pushback is misplaced and extremely naive. It is being sold as magic words to illegal immigrants. They are told all they have to do is get across the border (by any means) and turn themselves into a border patrol and say “Asylum” … the “magic word.” I bet with a lot of them. It’s the only English word they know.

Furthermore, what SWP doesn’t understand is that asylum laws require that those seeking asylum are to be detained until their case can be legally adjudicated. There’s NOTHING in the law that says they are to be sent all over the country.


Detained or they can wait on the other side of the border. The law allows them that choice … IF they crossed legally.


That is not true.

So change the law, don’t mischaracterize it.