106

There’s no law that allows the President to unilaterally declare from where we will accept asylum requests.

107

Asylum is for people who are in fear of persecution for their race, politics etc. If someone leaves El Salvador because of their political beliefs and is safe in Mexico, then they are no longer in fear of persecution for their political beliefs etc.
Obvious.

1 Like
108

Nice prose… What does the LAW say?

109

He won’t personally making decisions. Regulations will be used by those authorized to decide who complies with our laws on asylum and who does not comply.

110

That’s nice but there is no law or delegated power that allows the President to unilaterally decide this.

111

He’s not allowed to change the asylum qualifications. That’s what his EO did.

That was the personal decision to which I’m referring.

112

The law says those being persecuted for political beliefs etc can receive asylum. Regulations are necessary to help administrators decide who complies with the laws. Presidents and their appointees always make regulations to implement laws.

1 Like
113

Why don’t all these people just admit they want open borders?

1 Like
114

Why are you avoiding quoting the statute to defend your position?

115

You are free to quote it and the regulation if you think the regulation is in non compliance withe the law. I am making no such allegation.
You mean you have been saying Trump is changing the law and don’t even know what the law says?

116

There is clear language in our current asylum law. It’s not a regulation…it’s part of the law that says all asylum seekers have to do is present themselves at the border and make their case. It’s their legal right, regardless of where they came from.

The only exceptions to this are where we have negotiated “safe third country” agreements with other nations.

Trump is assuming a power he does not have.

Conservatives used to hate that.

117

Not arguing that on the basic level the EO’s and Memoradums are no constitutional. The action of the memoradum and the starting of a program that created a new type of “green card” was not within the rights of the president.

118

Nor is what Trump is doing.

119

So they can claim they are being persecuted in El Salvador when they aren’t even in El Salvador? What if they claim they are being persecuted in El Salvador and have never been to El Salvador?

Of course it matters where they come from.

120

You will not find a post in this thread saying I agree with how Trump is institution the restriction.

121

Please stop deliberately misinterpreting what I said so as to make the conversation drag on.

You know I meant it doesn’t matter if they cross through 10 other countries to get here…if they get to the border, they can claim asylum.

It was clear that’s what I meant because I immediately went on to talk about the safe third country exception.

122

I know exactly what the law says… I am asking for your “legal analysis” of this new regulation and the statute.

123

Ok…good to know.

And although I think the Dreamers was a good idea I don’t like how Obama did it either.

Because it wasn’t in his power and because of all the problems being caused now doing it that way.

1 Like
124

Since you got nothing, I will let the DHS speak on the regulation:

125

Lol… Did you expect the department who issued the regulation to debate its legality?

Here is the relevant section of the statute you keep avoiding…

(2) Exceptions
(A) Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

Has the US signed some new bilateral or multilateral agreement? Why would congress include this language if it’s entirely up to the AG?

1 Like