Ice investigators call for the dismantling of ICE, ICE wants to be separated from family detention.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

ICE Criminal Investigators Ask to Be Distanced from Detentions, Deportations in Letter to Kirstjen Nielsen
Nearly 20 ICE regional supervisors say the agency?s controversial detention and deportation policies have made it hard for them to conduct investigations into threats to national security.

A majority of ICE?s top criminal investigation agents are asking Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to spin their division off from the agency.

In a letter sent last week, 19 special agents in charge at ICE's Homeland Security Investigations unit said that ICE?s controversial detention and deportation policies have made it hard for them to conduct investigations into threats to national security, organized crime, narcotics smuggling and human trafficking.

"HS'?s investigations have been perceived as targeting undocumented aliens, instead of the transnational criminal organizations that facilitate cross border crimes impacting our communities and national security," the special agents in charge wrote in the previously unreported letter.

They also wrote that "the perception of HSI's investigative independence is unnecessarily impacted by the political nature" of ICE's immigration enforcement. "Many jurisdictions continue to refuse to work with HSI because of a perceived linkage to the politics of civil immigration."

The agents are asking Nielsen to make HSI a separate agency under the Department of Homeland Security. In their letter, they draw a comparison to how the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration operate separately under the Department of Justice.

https://www.texasobserver.org/ice-hsi-letter-kirstjen-nielsen-criminal-civil-deportation-zero-tolerance/

So an unlikely ally for those who are calling for ICE to be dismantled are ICE supervisors themselves. They do not feel they are there to torment asylum seekers but to actually go after criminals.. go figure.

ICE is a weird agency.

It enforces immigration law, but not at the border or on the shorelines. For some reason, it's organised under the Department of Homeland Security. And despite existing ostensibly to combat international criminal organisations attempting to breach the borders - drug smugglers, sex traffickers, terrorists with bomb-making equipment in their underpants - the vast majority of its budget goes towards snatching up people who miss their court dates or who don't have papers on hand.

I don't think Trump knows what ICE does. He's said he's seen them "literally liberate towns," which is literally not a thing that has happened. He also seems to think that ICE patrols the border, but that's the, uh...the Border Patrol that does that, funnily enough. ICE operates internally - they raid minority neighbourhoods looking for undocumented immigrants and hang outside courthouses to catch the ones that are honest enough to meet their court date. As far as fighting crime goes, they're largely ineffectual. They probably actually make day-to-day law enforcement harder - if you're an illegal immigrant who's witnessed a crime, ICE is a massive incentive for you not to co-operate with the police or to even call them in the first place.

The most important job ICE does is its division that investigates drug cartels. That's the division asking to be separated from ICE because they're sick of all the agency's funding going to "enforcement and removals."

All that said, the "abolish ICE" rallying cry is not one that I like. For one, it's too vague - do you want to abolish ICE entirely and replacing it with nothing, or do you want it replaced with a new federal agency, or do you want to reform and reorganise it? (Why is immigration and custom enforcement handled by the Department of Homeland Security anyway? Shouldn't it be handled by the Department of Immigration?)

bastardofmelbourne:
ICE is a weird agency.

It enforces immigration law, but not at the border or on the shorelines. For some reason, it's organised under the Department of Homeland Security. And despite existing ostensibly to combat international criminal organisations attempting to breach the borders - drug smugglers, sex traffickers, terrorists with bomb-making equipment in their underpants - the vast majority of its budget goes towards snatching up people who miss their court dates or who don't have papers on hand.

It also didn't exist 20 years ago. Not many people actually know that, but it is true, ICE was created in 2003.

bastardofmelbourne:
ICE is a weird agency.

It enforces immigration law, but not at the border or on the shorelines. For some reason, it's organised under the Department of Homeland Security. And despite existing ostensibly to combat international criminal organisations attempting to breach the borders - drug smugglers, sex traffickers, terrorists with bomb-making equipment in their underpants - the vast majority of its budget goes towards snatching up people who miss their court dates or who don't have papers on hand.

It makes sense, pretty much every federal level law enforcement agency is under the umbrella of the DHS these days, and there wasn't anything dedicated to enforcing immigration and custom laws within the US before it. Not that there was a need in the minds of many due to local law enforcement dealing with it, but when you get to the point where 46 out of the 50 states have a lower population then the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country, there's a problem. ICE isn't liked by quite a few people, but the problem is large enough both in scale and cost (socially and monetarily) to justify its existence and operations. I mean hell, the most conservative (numerical, not ideological) estimate I've seen for the cost of illegal immigration in the US in direct costs to government at all levels is 100 billion per year. And that's not counting other indirect costs, such as the 45 billion (again, smallest estimate) cost to education that comes indirectly through the children of illegals attending lower education. With those type of numbers, intervention is necessary, and easy to justify given the savings. A 5% reduction in illegal immigration, for example, would more then justify The Wall. ICE, similarly, doesn't have to do much to justify their budget given the savings they create to local, state and federal agencies.

Though I do wish, however one feels about them, there would be enough common sense to not protest them when they bust a child sex trafficking ring.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/protesters-blast-ice-agents-breaking-up-child-sex-trafficking-ring/

Ok I have to ask, what the hell is I.C.E. exactly?

Samtemdo8:
Ok I have to ask, what the hell is I.C.E. exactly?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It's basically a case of "exactly what it says on the tin", but some of their methods of enforcement are...uncomfortably invasive on privacy, to say the least.

Samtemdo8:
Ok I have to ask, what the hell is I.C.E. exactly?

This best explains it:

Ice was created in 2003 when the Bush administration reorganized a number of federal agencies in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, and placed them under the brand new Department of Homeland Security.

Ice is not responsible for patrolling or securing US borders; that task falls to the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP). It is CBP agents who have been charged with enforcing the administration?s ?zero tolerance? policy, detaining migrants and asylum seekers at the border and initiating the separation of undocumented families.

Ice is primarily tasked with what it calls Enforcement and Removal Operations: essentially the location, detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants who have already successfully crossed the border and are living in the US. Under President Barack Obama, the unit prioritized removing those undocumented immigrants who had committed serious crimes, but the Trump administration has broadened its mandate to target anyone in the US illegally.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/05/us-immigration-what-is-ice-and-why-is-it-controversial

Prior to Trump, they focused their efforts on criminals and threats to national security, Trump however, chose to use them to target families and other who have not posed any danger or threat to society. ICE, according to what the ICE agents here have stated is that Trumps policies are interfering with their ability to properly deal with actual threats to national security. They feel that if Trump wants to go after non criminals and families and detain families, he should create a separate agency for that and leave them out of it so they can do " their actual job" which they see as protecting people from actual threats instead.

Lil devils x:
Prior to Trump, they focused their efforts on criminals and threats to national security,

That's not really true though, is it? They've been pretty infamous on heavy-handed tactics which put legal migrants (particularly Hispanic) through a lot of stress for as long as I can remember.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
Prior to Trump, they focused their efforts on criminals and threats to national security,

That's not really true though, is it? They've been pretty infamous on heavy-handed tactics which put legal migrants (particularly Hispanic) through a lot of stress for as long as I can remember.

I agree their heavy handed tactics have been a constitutional nightmare as far as I am concerned. I think this is why they are now saying that Trump should make a separate agency to deal with non criminals because they do not know how to do anything but " heavy handed tactics" ( aka abuse people), so they are not equipped to handle families or children or anyone else in a " humane way". I am not saying they are in any way the appropriate way to handle any of this, they are horrific tbh, what has changed though is who Trump is trying to wield them against.

It is telling that even ICE thinks they are " too much force" to be used against families and non criminals. That should speak volumes about whether they should be used at all tbh.

Lil devils x:
I am not saying they are in any way the appropriate way to handle any of this, they are horrific tbh, what has changed though is who Trump is trying to wield them against.

Again, I would argue he has just been more obvious about this. They have targeted groups of legal migrants for years. Dragging Trump into an argument about the future of ICE is misleading for this reason, and because it inherently splits out the support for any change.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
Prior to Trump, they focused their efforts on criminals and threats to national security,

That's not really true though, is it? They've been pretty infamous on heavy-handed tactics which put legal migrants (particularly Hispanic) through a lot of stress for as long as I can remember.

Under the Obama administration, ICE was instructed to prioritise their resources towards finding and deporting illegal immigrants with a serious criminal record. This policy was undone by then-DHS Secretary John Kelly under the Trump administration.

This policy change had consequences. During the last three months of the Obama administration, 82% of illegal immigrants deported by ICE possessed a criminal conviction. Under Trump, that number has plummeted to just 65%. This trend has escalated into 2018.

This is undesirable not just in moral terms - why are violent and non-violent undocumented immigrants being given the same enforcement priority? - but also in terms of simple practicality. By directing ICE to de-prioritise its enforcement efforst away from deporting illegal immigrants with a serious criminal record and to reallocate all resources to the general immigrant population overall, Trump is misallocating the limited resources of federal law enforcement. The more time and money ICE spends chasing after non-violent offenders, the less time and money they have to pursue violent offenders and transnational criminal gangs like MS-13. It's wasteful, and it makes the job harder for state police departments, who have a harder time convincing illegal immigrants to co-operate if those immigrants are being threatened with summary deportation if they ever reveal themselves to law enforcement. It means immigrant communities are less likely to call the cops on a suspected criminal in the community, less likely to testify in a criminal prosecution, and less likely to co-operate with police investigations in the area.

It's true that US immigration policy has been unnecessarily strict, complicated and bureaucratic for several administrations now. But it is a mistake to assume that Trump is simply continuing an Obama policy. Trump has directly reversed a key Obama policy on immigration law enforcement, and done so in a way that makes the enforcement process less effective overall. He is continuing to do so in other areas, the most high-profile of which being his "zero tolerance" border arrest policy, which has had the effect of rapidly stretching the Border Patrol's detention capacities to breaking point by increasing the number of detainees without any corresponding increase to judicial or detention resources.

It is a policy that is both cruel and impractical. Despite justifying the policy by paying lip service to "law-and-order" principles, Trump is actively weakening federal immigration enforcement. He only considers his policy "stronger" on immigration enforcement because he regards non-violent immigrants as being morally equivalent to violent immigrants. This betrays the underlying foundation of Trump's immigration policy: it is not about security. It is not about law or order. It is about racism. Trump thinks there are too many Hispanic people entering the US, and he wants the US to have fewer Hispanic people. To him, directing ICE to arrest and deport all illegal immigrants regardless of their criminal tendencies is fulfilling a practical priority - because his priority is simply to kick out all the wetbacks.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
I am not saying they are in any way the appropriate way to handle any of this, they are horrific tbh, what has changed though is who Trump is trying to wield them against.

Again, I would argue he has just been more obvious about this. They have targeted groups of legal migrants for years. Dragging Trump into an argument about the future of ICE is misleading for this reason, and because it inherently splits out the support for any change.

Just because something is bad, doesn't mean it can't get worse. ICE was seen as bad by many people on the Left when Obama was in the White House. Trump has made it seem bad becuase now even people in the centre see it as bad. Trump did change the policy through executive order, that lead to way more people being incarcerated. Denying that he made it worse, doesn't discount the fact that it was bad in the first place. IMO, you should point out every bad deed, including Trump. I have no idea why bringing Trump in is misleading. A bad Trump doesnt excuse a bad Obama.

In your mind, does it split the support for change becuase some people want ICE dismantled and some just want it changed? Or another reason?

trunkage:
In your mind, does it split the support for change becuase some people want ICE dismantled and some just want it changed? Or another reason?

It splits support because you make something a party issue, and people are irrational. Whereas really, a debate on the role of ICE and the tactics which it is acceptable for them to use should be largely separated from party lines.

bastardofmelbourne:
(Why is immigration and custom enforcement handled by the Department of Homeland Security anyway? Shouldn't it be handled by the Department of Immigration?)

There is no Department of Immigration. Until 2003, the agency in charge of immigration was part of the Department of Justice. Homeland Security has since been in charge of all things related to the border, including the Border Patrol, the TSA, the Coast Guard, and immigration.

SupahEwok:
There is no Department of Immigration. Until 2003, the agency in charge of immigration was part of the Department of Justice. Homeland Security has since been in charge of all things related to the border, including the Border Patrol, the TSA, the Coast Guard, and immigration.

Huh. Why doesn't the US have a Department of Immigration?

That...explains a lot, actually.

Zontar:
It makes sense, pretty much every federal level law enforcement agency is under the umbrella of the DHS these days, and there wasn't anything dedicated to enforcing immigration and custom laws within the US before it.

Well, this isn't totally accurate. The ATF, FBI and DEA aren't run by DHS, they're run by the DOJ. Those are the three largest US federal law enforcement agencies that I'm aware of.

Also, the US had internal immigration enforcement prior to 2003. It was called the INS. I know this, because the post I quoted above made me go check Wikipedia five minutes ago, which is where I learned this.

Catnip1024:

trunkage:
In your mind, does it split the support for change becuase some people want ICE dismantled and some just want it changed? Or another reason?

It splits support because you make something a party issue, and people are irrational. Whereas really, a debate on the role of ICE and the tactics which it is acceptable for them to use should be largely separated from party lines.

So what you're saying is that people will get offended if we use the word Trump. They'll disagree with me on the basis of saying The Word That Must Not Be Said. And we shouldn't offend people.

There was a massive campaign by Abolitionists in 1938. They wrote postcards (tens of thousands) to the South asking them to stop slwvery and provided reasonings behind the argument. Some historians have stated that this was the moment that the discussion between the North and South broke down, leading to Civil War. Imagine getting so worked up about your position that when some provides a counter arguement, you shut down all conversations. I bring this up as an example of what your saying. You could claim that if the North was just more patient, something would have happened. I'd say not, they had already been arguing for 60 years. How patient should someone be?

Its a way to stop people discussing topics that are important to them. I'm not inherently against your position. I'm pointing out that people are getting offended over Trump possibly doing the wrong thing that it will stifle the discussion.

And I thought that ICE was mainly bipartisan. There are only a few politicians who are against it.

trunkage:
So what you're saying is that people will get offended if we use the word Trump. They'll disagree with me on the basis of saying The Word That Must Not Be Said. And we shouldn't offend people.

There was a massive campaign by Abolitionists in 1938. They wrote postcards (tens of thousands) to the South asking them to stop slwvery and provided reasonings behind the argument. Some historians have stated that this was the moment that the discussion between the North and South broke down, leading to Civil War. Imagine getting so worked up about your position that when some provides a counter arguement, you shut down all conversations. I bring this up as an example of what your saying. You could claim that if the North was just more patient, something would have happened. I'd say not, they had already been arguing for 60 years. How patient should someone be?

Its a way to stop people discussing topics that are important to them. I'm not inherently against your position. I'm pointing out that people are getting offended over Trump possibly doing the wrong thing that it will stifle the discussion.

And I thought that ICE was mainly bipartisan. There are only a few politicians who are against it.

As a counter, if Republicans had tried to make drone strikes an issue along party lines back in the Obama presidency, do you not think you would have seen a lot more Democrats defending them than might have been inclined to had it simply been an impartial discussion of what rules of engagement etc. should be for them?

It's not about Trump, per say, it's about people unnecessarily bringing emotion and party lines into a discussion that really doesn't need it, and won't be helped by it.

There are few politicians against ICE, but I imagine there are a dozen different visions of what the remit of ICE should be. That's a very different thing.

Catnip1024:
As a counter, if Republicans had tried to make drone strikes an issue along party lines back in the Obama presidency, do you not think you would have seen a lot more Democrats defending them than might have been inclined to had it simply been an impartial discussion of what rules of engagement etc. should be for them?

I think if Republicans had genuinely taken issue with Obama's drone strikes, Obama would have scaled back on drone strikes. He was only doing them in the first place to address Republican criticisms that he was "weak."

bastardofmelbourne:

Catnip1024:
As a counter, if Republicans had tried to make drone strikes an issue along party lines back in the Obama presidency, do you not think you would have seen a lot more Democrats defending them than might have been inclined to had it simply been an impartial discussion of what rules of engagement etc. should be for them?

I think if Republicans had genuinely taken issue with Obama's drone strikes, Obama would have scaled back on drone strikes. He was only doing them in the first place to address Republican criticisms that he was "weak."

Personally, I doubt that. I have consistently voiced the opinion that drone strikes would inevitably increase in number due to technological advancements. I see them at the very least maintaining a plateau for the next couple of Presidencies. There are too many senior military figures who recognise their use as a means of dodging the judicial process. Or things like borders.

What could have changed was the rules of engagement and increasing transparency in utilising them. Which would be nice, but I doubt we will ever see cross-party support for change because of the partisan bullshit you allude to.

Catnip1024:

Lil devils x:
Prior to Trump, they focused their efforts on criminals and threats to national security,

That's not really true though, is it? They've been pretty infamous on heavy-handed tactics which put legal migrants (particularly Hispanic) through a lot of stress for as long as I can remember.

Yep. They got worse under Trump's administration under the new zero-tolerance policy though. The policy's secondary effects made ICE's incompetence/malice way more obvious.

Just throwing it out there, ICE is confiscating religious items from the immigrants and throwing them in the trash. Because I think they're TRYING to get people to compare them to Nazis now.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/06/26/why-janitor-saved-rosaries-confiscated-mexican-border

Oh, and a one year old was put in court. Alone.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627082032/1-year-old-shows-up-in-immigration-court

And people still support everything that's going on at the border.

erttheking:
Just throwing it out there, ICE is confiscating religious items from the immigrants and throwing them in the trash. Because I think they're TRYING to get people to compare them to Nazis now.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/06/26/why-janitor-saved-rosaries-confiscated-mexican-border

Oh, and a one year old was put in court. Alone.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627082032/1-year-old-shows-up-in-immigration-court

And people still support everything that's going on at the border.

You know, there's a really easy way to prevent all these issues. It's really easy to not cross a deadly desert and to make asylum applications at the US embassy, 18 consulates, or 330 ports of entry between the US and Mexico. All 349 of those locations accept asylum claims, and the odds of an application being accepted are literally the exact same as if you enter the US illegally, but with the added benefit of there being no risk of death, no risk of rape, no risk of detention, and significantly lower risk of bureaucratic mix up.

It's almost as if the only people claiming asylum are either people who are not particularly smart, or who aren't actually refugees.

Catnip1024:

bastardofmelbourne:

Catnip1024:
As a counter, if Republicans had tried to make drone strikes an issue along party lines back in the Obama presidency, do you not think you would have seen a lot more Democrats defending them than might have been inclined to had it simply been an impartial discussion of what rules of engagement etc. should be for them?

I think if Republicans had genuinely taken issue with Obama's drone strikes, Obama would have scaled back on drone strikes. He was only doing them in the first place to address Republican criticisms that he was "weak."

Personally, I doubt that. I have consistently voiced the opinion that drone strikes would inevitably increase in number due to technological advancements. I see them at the very least maintaining a plateau for the next couple of Presidencies. There are too many senior military figures who recognise their use as a means of dodging the judicial process. Or things like borders.

What could have changed was the rules of engagement and increasing transparency in utilising them. Which would be nice, but I doubt we will ever see cross-party support for change because of the partisan bullshit you allude to.

I honestly think drone strikes would be about as hard to scale back as enforcing the border is. They're both a case of both parties wanting one thing and the voters for both wanting another. Republicans and Democrats want drone strikes scaled back and immigration law enforced (we aren't talking small numbers here, we're talking 2:1 or more from both parties, there is no great divide between either party on both these issues), the problem is both parties feel the exact opposite, they both want the drone war to continue and, for one reason or another, immigration law to go unenforced.

Trump came to power in part because of this issue of the political class being at odds with the nation at large, though only in part.

Zontar:
It's really easy to not cross a deadly desert and to make asylum applications at the US embassy, 18 consulates

You cannot make asylum claims anywhere except on US mainland soil and it does not matter if they cross the border illegally, they can still claim asylum.

erttheking:
Just throwing it out there, ICE is confiscating religious items from the immigrants and throwing them in the trash. Because I think they're TRYING to get people to compare them to Nazis now.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/06/26/why-janitor-saved-rosaries-confiscated-mexican-border

Oh, and a one year old was put in court. Alone.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627082032/1-year-old-shows-up-in-immigration-court

And people still support everything that's going on at the border.

Ya know, might help to stress that Mexicans tend to be Christian. If US Christians have such a persecution complex, they might want to stop persecuting themselves?

Dr. Thrax:

You cannot make asylum claims anywhere except on US mainland soil

Wrong, you are objectively wrong about that, you can, in fact, do so at the embassy, and at consulates. But even if that wasn't the case (it's not but let's pretend it is), that doesn't explain why one would risk rape and death to cross a deadly desert to cross the border illegally when you have the literal exact same chances to having your claim accepted if you just go to one of the 330 ports of entry between the US and Mexico.

Zontar:
But even if that wasn't the case (it's not but let's pretend it is), that doesn't explain why one would risk rape and death to cross a deadly desert to cross the border illegally

They do this because they fucking risk rape and death already, Zontar.
That's literally why they fucking take this massive risk.

I can't fucking believe I have to spell it out for you like this it's the simplest goddamn concept.

Zontar:

Dr. Thrax:

You cannot make asylum claims anywhere except on US mainland soil

Wrong, you are objectively wrong about that, you can, in fact, do so at the embassy, and at consulates. But even if that wasn't the case (it's not but let's pretend it is), that doesn't explain why one would risk rape and death to cross a deadly desert to cross the border illegally when you have the literal exact same chances to having your claim accepted if you just go to one of the 330 ports of entry between the US and Mexico.

I notice you cut out the part of his argument where he pointed out you can still claim asylum if you cross the border illegally, but cherry picking always ways your strong suit. You also ignore that people who do arrive at the proper border entries go through all of this shit too. A lot of these families are separated at the border.

And, once again, you look over the abuse being heaped on people and victim blame. So let me make something perfectly clear. Even if these people are here illegally, what America is going to them is utterly cruel and inhumane. I don't know why treating these people like they're not actually people, but when we're taking one year olds into court and treating them like they're supposed to be full grown adults, something has gone horribly wrong. This is abuse for the sake of abuse, and you don't give a shit.

So stop telling me "oh well X and Y would be safer" because it's pretty clear you don't give a rat's ass about the safety of these people regardless of who they are.

Zontar:
Wrong, you are objectively wrong about that, you can, in fact, do so at the embassy, and at consulates.

No, you cannot claim asylum anywhere except on US soil or ports of entry.
You may petition for refugee status using embassies - meaning out of country -, but asylum claims must be made either at a port of entry or within the US itself.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-how-32299.html

One key difference between applications for asylum or refugee status is where you apply - refugees must apply from outside the U.S., while people requesting asylum must apply either at a U.S. border (including airports, seaports, and the like) or from within the United States.

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
But even if that wasn't the case (it's not but let's pretend it is), that doesn't explain why one would risk rape and death to cross a deadly desert to cross the border illegally

They do this because they fucking risk rape and death already, Zontar.
That's literally why they fucking take this massive risk.

I can't fucking believe I have to spell it out for you like this it's the simplest goddamn concept.

Okay so let me get this straight, there is absolutely no route along they can take that's safe, there's no path that isn't by sea or air tourists form the US can take to get to tourist destinations in Mexico, there's no path that is less dangerous then travelling a deadly desert?

If we assume you're correct, that's not an argument for them seeking asylum in the US, that's far beyond the point of the US having a moral duty to restore law and order through force of arms. If what you're saying is true (I highly doubt that given the existence of overland tourism and the fact illegals are very suddenly staring to claim asylum where before they where not) it is downright immoral for the US not to intervene, to say nothing of the massive security risk which in itself also demands such action.

Not that I'm against such dramatic action, but if what you're saying is true then it's the only morally justifiable course of action and allowing it to continue is downright evil. Guess we need to invade northern Mexico.

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Wrong, you are objectively wrong about that, you can, in fact, do so at the embassy, and at consulates.

No, you cannot claim asylum anywhere except on US soil or ports of entry.
You may petition for refugee status using embassies - meaning out of country -, but asylum claims must be made either at a port of entry or within the US itself.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-how-32299.html

One key difference between applications for asylum or refugee status is where you apply - refugees must apply from outside the U.S., while people requesting asylum must apply either at a U.S. border (including airports, seaports, and the like) or from within the United States.

Zontar made an unsourced claim that turned out to be wrong. I am utterly shocked.

Saelune:

erttheking:
Just throwing it out there, ICE is confiscating religious items from the immigrants and throwing them in the trash. Because I think they're TRYING to get people to compare them to Nazis now.

https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2018/06/26/why-janitor-saved-rosaries-confiscated-mexican-border

Oh, and a one year old was put in court. Alone.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/08/627082032/1-year-old-shows-up-in-immigration-court

And people still support everything that's going on at the border.

Ya know, might help to stress that Mexicans tend to be Christian. If US Christians have such a persecution complex, they might want to stop persecuting themselves?

Mexicans are catholic, which isn't the same as being a U.S. christian.

Dr. Thrax:

Zontar:
Wrong, you are objectively wrong about that, you can, in fact, do so at the embassy, and at consulates.

No, you cannot claim asylum anywhere except on US soil or ports of entry.
You may petition for refugee status using embassies - meaning out of country -, but asylum claims must be made either at a port of entry or within the US itself.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asylum-or-refugee-status-how-32299.html

One key difference between applications for asylum or refugee status is where you apply - refugees must apply from outside the U.S., while people requesting asylum must apply either at a U.S. border (including airports, seaports, and the like) or from within the United States.

You're forgetting one very important fact, embassies and consulates are treated as territory, which is why it's actually the norm in many places for embassies to be where people apply. A perfect example is my own country, who take a significant number of our asylum claims at our embassies.

Zontar:
Snip

Ok. Zontar? Can you please stop implying how you want a Greater American Co Prosperity Sphere? I'm starting to get a little freaked out by the fact that you seem to want the United States to take over all of North America and then some of South America.

Zontar:
Okay so let me get this straight, there is absolutely no route along they can take that's safe, there's no path that isn't by sea or air tourists form the US can take to get to tourist destinations in Mexico, there's no path that is less dangerous then travelling a deadly desert?

If we assume you're correct, that's not an argument for them seeking asylum in the US, that's far beyond the point of the US having a moral duty to restore law and order through force of arms. If what you're saying is true (I highly doubt that given the existence of overland tourism and the fact illegals are very suddenly staring to claim asylum where before they where not) it is downright immoral for the US not to intervene, to say nothing of the massive security risk which in itself also demands such action.

Not that I'm against such dramatic action, but if what you're saying is true then it's the only morally justifiable course of action and allowing it to continue is downright evil. Guess we need to invade northern Mexico.

Crossing the border illegally and applying for asylum takes less time than it does to make a refugee application, which can take years, and if some of these people are spotted at US embassies, their lives could be in even greater danger.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here