Historically speaking when you are claiming asylum you claim at the first safe point of entry. Not five countries further in one direction.
3 Likes
they don’t qualify because of the first part.
Passing through a third country is just proof that its not asylum they are seeking. When you’re running for your life, you don’t pass by a couple local cops and a sherrif to get to the state police barracks
3 Likes
They’re economic migrants.
I think we could go further in this debate if we just accepted that one fact.
To say they are asylum seekers is a bit insulting to actual people who need asylum. Like those folks we left behind in Afghanistan for example.
2 Likes
Where is that in the law?
Why not? Why can’t they claim asylum in the safest country for them? It might be the first country they enter… it might not.
Our laws have allowed it forever
no they have not.
they can apply for it, won’t likely get it
1 Like
Being poor is not a legitimate reason to claim asylum.
Are they being targeted for their political beliefs, their ethnicity or race, or their religion? No? Then they are economic migrants, not asylum seekers.
We can argue all day long about if we should be letting economic migrants in, but we should at least be honest about what they are.
1 Like
Our asylum laws allow for immigrants to skip the first country of entry to come to ours… right?
and then use that as evidence that asylum is not what they seek. yes, thats the way it works
1 Like
2 Likes
Your argument is that all receiving countries for potential asylum seekers are literally just to assume complete ■■■■■■■ ignorance on the legal justifications for asylum and essentially assume that their claim is valid and NOT factor in anything else. For you and all those who want open borders believe that a person’s right to make an asylum claim is so sacrosanct that nothing else matters including a nation’s sovereignty. If a billion people show up at the border we would have no choice but to let them all in and adjudicate every single claim.
Wow! What a powerful image.
Wouldn’t that be interesting if he did something like that as his first gesture in front of the press in the Oval Office.
And where’s the law that states we as “the US have no choice but to parole everyone into the country who says that they are an asylum seeker”? You spent 4 years defending what Biden was doing at the border, claiming that there’s NOTHING that can be done differently, insinuating that this will also be the case if Trump were president. I am looking forward to seeing the differences in how the border will look over the next four years. Here’s a prelude:
That appears to be a negotiation tactic not a policy position. That’s pretty much how Reagan got the Russians to see reason … show of strength. (And I remember how libs sgueeled about “Ronny the war monger” back then too.)
2 Likes
yep. and when putin doesn’t dance?
Did NATO expand while Gorbachev was President? No. I don’t think any new NATO members were approved until after Yeltsin left office well after the Soviet Union was dissolved.
Odd that you hold that belief. It’s most certainly not what the Harris campaign was saying. 
not what he was saying a week ago
The denial rate of asylum claims is over 70%. And that’s under Biden. Under Trump, it’s not likely to go down. Illegal immigrants have been taught to claim asylum regardless of their reasons for coming here. Technically, asylum requests are supposed to be made before the individual enters the country unless there is an imminent risk. That’s what the “wait in Mexico” policy under Trump was about.
the idea that 30% of the claims are valid is ludicrous
1 Like
