Hundreds of African migrants cross US-Mexico border in Texas over past week: reports

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The point is, one must be physically in the US to apply for asylum.

You are Wrong ... back in their home country they can apply at any Embassy or Consulate

90% of Asylum Seekers NEVER show up for their court date ... what the want is to get caught, get a court date and then disappear into the country never to be seen again

this is why there is a RISE in AFRICAN Economic Migrants coming from Mexico it easier to slip in the southern border than apply for Asylum in their home country ... because they are not fleeing violence and persecution, they just want a better job
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
You are Wrong ... back in their home country they can apply at any Embassy or Consulate

90% of Asylum Seekers NEVER show up for their court date ... what the want is to get caught, get a court date and then disappear into the country never to be seen again

this is why there is a RISE in AFRICAN Economic Migrants coming from Mexico it easier to slip in the southern border than apply for Asylum in their home country ... because they are not fleeing violence and persecution, they just want a better job
No they can't. Here's two examples of what US Embassies in Italy and Poland say:
The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States.
https://pl.usembassy.gov/visas/politica-asylum-and-refugees/
The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States.
https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/rome/sections-offices/dhs/uscis/refugeesasylum/

Here's what the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website says:
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states
Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?
Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:
  • You are not currently in removal proceedings
  • You file an asylum application within one year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.
According to DoJ stats for FY17, asylum seekers showed up to court 89% of the time. You have it backwards.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download#page=34

Again, they can't apply in their home country. They fly from their country (full of violence and persecution) to Ecuador because there's no Visa required. They then treck through Central American and Mexico.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I'm sure they do. Is that a requirement of seeking asylum?
you sure as hell do not have to FLY Across the Atlantic into Ecuador and walk to the US or travel 1500 miles from Guatemala

also Asylum Seekers are SUPPOSED To seek asylum in the 1st country they come to in this case MEXICO

Asylum Seekers can be bared if they can be 'returned to a safe 3rd country'
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
you sure as hell do not have to FLY Across the Atlantic into Ecuador and walk to the US or travel 1500 miles from Guatemala

also Asylum Seekers are SUPPOSED To seek asylum in the 1st country they come to in this case MEXICO

Asylum Seekers can be bared if they can be 'returned to a safe 3rd country'
As I said, they fly to Ecudaor because a Visa is not required. This is contrary to Mexico.

I know you want the answer to be something else, but you don't get to decide how they arive here, just that US law requires them to physically apply in the country.

They are seeking asylum in Mexico also.
On recent Saturday in Tijuana, there were 90 Cameroonians lined up to get on a waiting list to request asylum that has swelled to about 7,500 names. Also on the waiting list are Ethiopians, Eritreans, Mauritanians, Sudanese and Congolese.
Cameroonians generally fly to Ecuador because no visa is required and take about four months to reach Tijuana.
https://www.apnews.com/429f04067c38428ba0d06749b53e6df0

If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and forward (or refer) your case to an Immigration Judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Immigration Judge conducts a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. If we do not have jurisdiction over your case, the Asylum Office will issue an I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing. See ‘Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR’ below if this situation applies to you.

Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
OK after digging around ..... Congratz you win ...

I stand by my earlier statement DHS Data Shows 90% of Asylum Seekers NEVER show up for Court

they are bunch of Sneaking, Manipulative Liars, renting children to claim 'we are a family' gaming the system ....

U.S. Refugee Admissions Program

Can be applied for from the home country ..... Seeking Refugee Status or Asylum.


Is it easier to come to the U.S. and apply for asylum rather than applying for refugee status?

Neither route is easy. Refugee classification is a long process, but you will have access to plenty of support if you are eventually successful. Applying for asylum after you have arrived in the U.S. is somewhat easier, but you must have the financial means to come to the United States and you risk being sent back to your home country if you are denied.

To become an asylee or refugee, you must refuse to return to your country of origin due to a well-founded fear that you will be persecuted based on your race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion. In order to request refugee status, you must have left your home country (except in special circumstances such as a disaster or war); while to apply for asylum, you must be at the U.S. border or already present in the United States.

You cannot simply “apply” to become a refugee – you must first get a referral. A referral from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNCHR) is your best bet for getting into the U.S. Resettlement Program (USRAP), but even then only 1% of cases are referred for resettlement in a third country such as the United States. If you are referred to USRAP, it is still not guaranteed that you will be given refugee status.

Next is the refugee application process, which can also be difficult. The good news is that after you are classified as a refugee, you will be matched with agencies that can give you support. Once you have arrived in the U.S., they will line you up with low-cost housing, employment options, access to English language classes, and a cultural orientation. Asylees do not receive all these benefits.



How to Obtain Protection from a U.S. Embassy or Consulate

How to Obtain Temporary Refuge at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate
Temporary refuge is a form of short-term protection from physical danger when the danger is both immediate (for example, a person is being pursued by a mob) and exceptionally grave (most often when there is a risk of possible death or serious bodily injury). It is also available to people who are in immediate danger of persecution based on the traditional grounds for asylum (described above).

In practice, this option tends to apply to high-profile figures, but it may be open to a few others as well. It provides temporary shelter by allowing people who need protection to enter and stay in the embassy or consulate after closing hours, at least until the danger ceases or the person chooses to leave. This option does not involve getting any help leaving the host country.

If you believe you might need temporary refuge, keep in mind that (depending on your home country’s relations with the United States) staying at a U.S. embassy or consulate could actually attract very negative attention to both you and embassy personnel, and put you at greater risk in the near future.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
So, the bottom line is that there is a path to citizenship via an Embassy. IT is hard to do but, it is an option. Maybe we should visit making this process easier! Streamline it.

However, it does NOT mean the rules in place now should be ignored. If it is hard to pay for a new car, the dealerships shouldn't give them away for free until a solution is found.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

According to DoJ stats for FY17, asylum seekers showed up to court 89% of the time. You have it backwards. They fly from their country (full of violence and persecution) to Ecuador because there's no Visa required. They then treck through Central American and Mexico.
Those that are referenced here, that 89%, are the true asylum seekers. Those that, if forced to return, would most likely be killed upon return, or live a life on the run.

And why is it those Africans do not stop and seek, and apply for, "asylum", in the first country they arrive? Why come all the way to America? The land of dead slave owners and full of racists and discriminatory practices against the African/black everywhere? Asylum my ass. Why don't these Africans trek to Morocco? Casablanca would be a nice place to settle into. Maybe even Liberia. Plenty of coastal towns and cites there to settle to escape from the bogeyman. Or Cape Town or Port Elizabeth in South Africa? The African continent is huge. So huge, it's the world's second largest and second most-populous continent. There has to be, 'safe', places someplace there. Hell, why not go north and just cross the Mediterranean Sea, the Balearic Sea, or the shortest route, the Strait of Gibraltar? And re-settle in Europe? Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, all nice with good year round weather.

Almost kinda like when someone gets fed up with the State they are living in. They don't fly to another Nation. They move to another State within the US.
 

Monello

Awww, jeez
PREMO Member
Current asylum seekers are making a mockery out of our process. Players learned to game the system. They end up benefitting, even if they don't qualify.

I wonder what would happen if you took all these asylum seekers and put them all on an island with plenty of resources. How long before it evolved into a hellhole that closely resembles the shithole place they left. I'll bet the under.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
As I said, they fly to Ecudaor because a Visa is not required. This is contrary to Mexico.

I know you want the answer to be something else, but you don't get to decide how they arive here, just that US law requires them to physically apply in the country.
I always find this thought process....intriguing.

Conditions in their home country are SO bad that they are fleeing vice trying to fix their situation. They're just horrible, and they KNOW that the United States is NOT like that. They KNOW that they'll be given a fair shot in the United States - otherwise, why would they choose the United States as the country to which they flee?

So, we know home = bad, US = good. What is the logical thing to do? Fly to the United States, or take a bus, or a boat, or a train, or even (God forbid) just walk if your conditions are SOOO bad.

And, many do that. It would seem the ones under discussion are the ones who walk.

So, do they walk to the nearest point of entry? No. Do they walk to a legal point of entry at all? For the most part, no.

What do they do?

They go to the farthest part they can, and try to break in illegally.
:eyebrow:

There's no logical reason for this. They travel much further than they need, and then don't seek asylum legally - they just enter illegally. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you believe that their goal is the United States because it is better, more honest, a safer place to live and a safer place to live is their goal! How is it safer if you MUST avoid the law, when your case is so good that you NEED to come here, you have an actual good reason to leave home, and all you have to do is walk up to the border and throw yourself on the mercy of a great nation you CHOSE because you know it is GOOD???!!!???


The answer is clear and obvious - your goal is not what you claim your goal is, your problems are NOT a good reason to leave in accordance with law, and you simply are trying to scam the country to which you have travelled. Your chances of being accepted in are not reasonable based on your problems at home, so you hope to enter and go undetected until you've been there so long some politician will plead your case for you as someone who should be allowed to stay because you've been here so long. You hope to knock out a baby or two to anchor you into the country.

In short, you are an entirely undesirable person to be here.


Chris, tell me that you can see this. Tell me that you are merely playing MidnightSpanker and utilizing the letter of the regulation and not the intent of it, the hair being split so finely even the best shampoo will never fix it. Tell me that you are not as stupid as your position makes you sound, but merely playing devil's advocate to the law and order crowd that say, "the tax laws are the problem, not the tax evaders" and you're just trying to prove that point with immigration law.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I always find this thought process....intriguing.

Conditions in their home country are SO bad that they are fleeing vice trying to fix their situation. They're just horrible, and they KNOW that the United States is NOT like that. They KNOW that they'll be given a fair shot in the United States - otherwise, why would they choose the United States as the country to which they flee?

So, we know home = bad, US = good. What is the logical thing to do? Fly to the United States, or take a bus, or a boat, or a train, or even (God forbid) just walk if your conditions are SOOO bad.

And, many do that. It would seem the ones under discussion are the ones who walk.

So, do they walk to the nearest point of entry? No. Do they walk to a legal point of entry at all? For the most part, no.

What do they do?

They go to the farthest part they can, and try to break in illegally.
:eyebrow:

There's no logical reason for this. They travel much further than they need, and then don't seek asylum legally - they just enter illegally. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if you believe that their goal is the United States because it is better, more honest, a safer place to live and a safer place to live is their goal! How is it safer if you MUST avoid the law, when your case is so good that you NEED to come here, you have an actual good reason to leave home, and all you have to do is walk up to the border and throw yourself on the mercy of a great nation you CHOSE because you know it is GOOD???!!!???


The answer is clear and obvious - your goal is not what you claim your goal is, your problems are NOT a good reason to leave in accordance with law, and you simply are trying to scam the country to which you have travelled. Your chances of being accepted in are not reasonable based on your problems at home, so you hope to enter and go undetected until you've been there so long some politician will plead your case for you as someone who should be allowed to stay because you've been here so long. You hope to knock out a baby or two to anchor you into the country.

In short, you are an entirely undesirable person to be here.


Chris, tell me that you can see this. Tell me that you are merely playing MidnightSpanker and utilizing the letter of the regulation and not the intent of it, the hair being split so finely even the best shampoo will never fix it. Tell me that you are not as stupid as your position makes you sound, but merely playing devil's advocate to the law and order crowd that say, "the tax laws are the problem, not the tax evaders" and you're just trying to prove that point with immigration law.
As I said. Hijinx is wrong and you folks are, in fact, bitching about people coming here legally.

The intent of the law is that people apply for asylum in person, physically within the United States. Instead of arguing that, you all want to argue people who may be gaming the system, or why they shouldn't have taken a particular route, or whatever other reason you can come up with.

If simply pointing out the laws makes me sound stupid, then there's not much else to say.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
As I said. Hijinx is wrong and you folks are, in fact, bitching about people coming here legally.

The intent of the law is that people apply for asylum in person, physically within the United States. Instead of arguing that, you all want to argue people who may be gaming the system, or why they shouldn't have taken a particular route, or whatever other reason you can come up with.

If simply pointing out the laws makes me sound stupid, then there's not much else to say.
No, what makes you sound stupid is saying they are coming here legally.

They are NOT coming here legally.

They may be seeking asylum within the bounds of the law, but they are NOT coming here legally. They are here ILLEGALLY, and then seeking asylum when caught being here illegally. They are not seeking asylum immediately upon entry to a legal port of entry, legally entering the country.

That's what makes your position sound stupid.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
No, what makes you sound stupid is saying they are coming here legally.

They are NOT coming here legally.

They may be seeking asylum within the bounds of the law, but they are NOT coming here legally. They are here ILLEGALLY, and then seeking asylum when caught being here illegally. They are not seeking asylum immediately upon entry to a legal port of entry, legally entering the country.

That's what makes your position sound stupid.
They are following the asylum law which tells them they must be here physically.

Asylum seekers are coming here legally.

Again, if pointing out the laws sounds stupid, that's not my problem.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
They are following the asylum law which tells them they must be here physically.

Asylum seekers are coming here legally.

Again, if pointing out the laws sounds stupid, that's not my problem.
If they are coming here legally, how is it they are here illegally?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
They are following the asylum law which tells them they must be here physically.

Asylum seekers are coming here legally.

Again, if pointing out the laws sounds stupid, that's not my problem.
here's the thing - seeking asylum is different from entering the country. If they walk up to a port of entry, they are in the United States and can seek asylum, entering the country legally with that asylum claim. That's called Affirmative Asylum processing. They are allowed to seek asylum even if they entered the United States illegally.

There is a difference between seeking asylum and entering the United States.

The ones to which those of us on here protest are the ones who enter ILLEGALLY, then seek asylum when caught being here illegally.

Do you understand the difference between coming here legally and legally seeking asylum? Because, there's a HUGE difference.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
If they walk up to a port of entry, they are in the United States and can seek asylum, entering the country legally with that asylum claim.
So you admit that applying for asylum requires no actual citizenship (per the law) and entering the USA to apply for asylum means they are not here illegally. Good.

You can choose to argue until you're blue in the face about it, but the law is the law. You don't have to be a citizen of this country to apply for asylum. In order to apply for asylum you must be physically in the country.

You are one again moving the goal posts and generalizing all defensive asylum claims under one sub-section of eligibility.
Individuals are generally placed into defensive asylum processing in one of two ways:·

  • They are referred to an Immigration Judge by USCIS after they have been determined to be ineligible for asylum at the end of the affirmative asylum process, or
  • They are placed in removal proceedings because they:
    • Were apprehended (or caught) in the United States or at a U.S. port of entry without proper legal documents or in violation of their immigration status,
      OR
    • Were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) trying to enter the United States without proper documentation, were placed in the expedited removal process, and were found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by an Asylum Officer. See Questions & Answers: Credible Fear Screenings for more information on the Credible Fear Process.
If they are in fact subject to defensive asylum claims then a judge looks it over and can have them removed.

Again, the law is the law. Don't like it, change it.

I mean, if that's okay for your argument against marijuana legalization, why can't it work here?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So you admit that applying for asylum requires no actual citizenship (per the law) and entering the USA to apply for asylum means they are not here illegally. Good.

You can choose to argue until you're blue in the face about it, but the law is the law. You don't have to be a citizen of this country to apply for asylum. In order to apply for asylum you must be physically in the country.
No one, ever, said you have to be a citizen of this country to apply for asylum

You do not have to enter the country illegally to apply for asylum. If you show up at an airport terminal, you can apply for asylum. If you show up at a legal port of entry, you can apply for asylum.

No one is saying that showing up at a port of entry and applying for asylum is entering illegally.

But, here's the thing - if you jump the border and enter illegally, you have illegally entered the country. If you subsequently apply for asylum, you are doing so as an illegal alien. If you did it at the border entry point - legal point of entry - then you didn't enter the country illegally and you are not an illegal alien.

To apply for asylum, you are allowed by law to be an illegal alien.

But, the question is, why would you? That's like breaking a window in a hospital and hiding out in a broom closet because you wanted to enter the Emergency Room. You could just walk up to the Emergency Room and they'll help you, but you choose to bust through a window and hide out, pretending to be another patient while eating that other patient's food and medicine, and then when you're caught pretending to be that other patient THEN you decide to ask to go to the Emergency Room.

It's really that stupid of an argument you're making for them.

You are one again moving the goal posts and generalizing all defensive asylum claims under one sub-section of eligibility.

If they are in fact subject to defensive asylum claims then a judge looks it over and can have them removed.
I generalized nothing, I posted a link with a clip from the page.

The point being, whether or not you are an illegal alien, you can still try for asylum, and part of defensive asylum is just saying, "but I don't wanna goooooooooooo!" That's not the only type of defensive asylum, nor did I say it was.

But, you're still an illegal alien if you entered the country illegally - even if you claim that at some point you were going to seek asylum.

But, why would you NOT just enter at a point of entry and seek asylum there when you would not have to run from law enforcement? There's not a single logical explanation if you actually think you are going to get asylum because your case deserves it.

Again, the law is the law. Don't like it, change it.

I mean, if that's okay for your argument against marijuana legalization, why can't it work here?
It's a good argument. I have to wonder if the rule that says you can seek asylum as an illegal alien is a law or a regulation. If it is a regulation, it should be changed immediately. If it is a law, it should be changed in a presidentially-called emergency session of congress - called for just that purpose.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
No they can't. Here's two examples of what US Embassies in Italy and Poland say:

https://pl.usembassy.gov/visas/politica-asylum-and-refugees/

https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/rome/sections-offices/dhs/uscis/refugeesasylum/

Here's what the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website says:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states


According to DoJ stats for FY17, asylum seekers showed up to court 89% of the time. You have it backwards.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107056/download#page=34

Again, they can't apply in their home country. They fly from their country (full of violence and persecution) to Ecuador because there's no Visa required. They then treck through Central American and Mexico.
They can apply for refugee status if outside the US.

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified by international and federal law.[1] A specified number of legally defined refugees who either apply for asylum from inside the U.S. or apply for refugee status from outside the U.S., are admitted annually
Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4]Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.[5]
To avoid abuses, European law, the Dublin Regulation, requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.
One does not have to enter the US illegally to request asylum, typically they are here legally. In fact those crossing the border from Mexico, if not Mexican citizens, must apply for asylum in MEXICO.

Note also the criteria for seeking asylum. They must SHOW that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Note that poverty, etc. is not considered a reason for asylum.
So saying you are coming to the US because you want more opportunity, isn't grounds for asylum. Neither is fleeing gang violence, Sorry, just because you live in a crap hole doesn't make it our problem. The individual must prove THEY are being PERSECUTED, in other words, the threats are directed specifically at them, for one of five reasons. Random acts of violence don't count, whether it's the government or not.
 
Top