rumitoid

The United States has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to process for entry into this country anyone who presents at our border asking for asylum.

Cut and paste from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states

The United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol define a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.

As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and through U.S. immigration law, the United States has LEGAL OBLIGATIONS to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status—either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the United States as an asylum seeker.

What Happens to Asylum Seekers Arriving at a U.S. Border?

Noncitizens who are encountered by, or present themselves to, a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border are subject to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes DHS to perform rapid deportations of certain individuals.

To ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes.

Credible Fear

Individuals who are placed in expedited removal proceedings and who tell a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official that they fear persecution, torture, or returning to their country or that they wish to apply for asylum should be referred for a credible fear screening interview conducted by an asylum officer.

If the asylum officer determines that the asylum seeker has a credible fear of persecution or torture, it means that the person has proven that he or she has a “significant possibility” of establishing eligibility for asylum or other protection under the Convention Against Torture. The individual will then be referred to immigration court to proceed with the defensive asylum application process.

If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a credible fear, the individual is ordered removed. Before deportation, the individual may appeal the negative credible fear decision by pursuing a truncated review process before an immigration judge. If the immigration judge overturns a negative credible fear finding, the individual is placed in further removal proceedings through which the individual can seek protection from removal. If the immigration judge upholds the negative finding by the asylum officer, the individual will be removed from the United States.

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, USCIS found 60,566 individuals to have credible fear. These individuals, many of whom were detained during this screening process, will be afforded an opportunity to apply for asylum defensively and establish that they meet the refugee definition.
The number of credible fear cases has skyrocketed since the procedure was implemented—in FY 2009, USCIS completed 5,523 cases. Case completions reached an all-time high in FY 2016 at 92,071 and decreased to 79,977 in FY 2017.

Reasonable Fear

Individuals who re-enter the United States unlawfully after a prior deportation order and noncitizens convicted of certain crimes are subject to a different expedited removal process called reinstatement of removal. To protect asylum seekers from summary removal before their asylum claim is heard, those in reinstatement of removal proceedings who express a fear of returning to their country are afforded a “reasonable fear” interview with an asylum officer.

To demonstrate a reasonable fear, the individual must show that there is a “reasonable possibility” that he or she will be tortured in the country of removal or persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. While both credible and reasonable fear determinations evaluate the likelihood of an individual’s persecution or torture if deported, the reasonable fear standard is higher.

If the asylum officer finds that the person has a reasonable fear of persecution or torture, he or she will be referred to immigration court. The person has the opportunity to prove to an immigration judge that he or she is eligible for "withholding of removal" or "deferral of removal"—protection from future persecution or torture. While withholding of removal is similar to asylum, some of the requirements are more difficult to meet and the relief it provides is narrower. Significantly, and unlike asylum, it does not provide a pathway to lawful permanent residence.

If the asylum officer determines the person does not have a reasonable fear of future persecution or torture, the individual may appeal the negative decision to an immigration judge. If the judge upholds the asylum officer’s negative determination, the individual is turned over to immigration enforcement officers for removal. However, if the immigration judge overturns the asylum officer's negative finding, the individual is placed in removal proceedings through which the individual can pursue protection from removal.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

If you are seeking asylum, you DO NOT

1)Rush the Border

2) Throw rocks and bottles at Border Patrol Officers

3)You show up at the Port of Entry and NOT at the gate

4)You DONT hold the flag of the country you are supposovely escaping from

and

5)You DONT demand to be let in here

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

This post is ridiculous. If one fears death in his country and seeks asylum they ask for asylum as soon as they come to a country they are safe in. Instead these future parasites go thousands of miles to seek work and freebies. Honduras is a failed state. Using that definition all of the Honduran people would be eligible for asylum. So stupid.

Gatsby

Every current member of these caravans has already REFUSED asylum, offered by Mexico.

No law allows refugees to pick and choose WHERE they will accept asylum.

Boy are you dense.

Cadillac

So Rumitoid........post your home address. Criminals are on the way.

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

“Boy are you dense” = “Boy are you an indoctrinated liberal sucker for fake news”.
Same difference, right?

Seems they’re taking offers to return home. Boy, must be rough back home, NOT! I can’t imagine Jews saying, “Oh well, may as well go back to Hitlers’ gas chambers”. Kinda “fakes up” the whole asylum ploy. Not that truth ever hindered the lib agenda.

Seth

Luckily for us, a president can take action when extraordinary circumstances present a Clear & Present Danger to the security of our country, and most people with even a lick of sense would consider a hoard of thousands of combative people whose stated goal is to storm our border to be a Clear & Present Danger.

Thank G-d for President Trump.

My take from this post is that you have entirely too much time on your hands, and as we know, idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Maybe you should take up stamp collecting, or renovate your house or something.

Smedley_buzkill

Ever hear of the McCarren Wharter Act of 1952? Here is an excerpt:

Section 212(f), states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

You might want to peruse Reid v Covert 1956
The fact is that Carter, Reagan, Clinton, W Bush and Obama all used this law in the exact same manner as Trump is using it and no one said boo. Of course, Reagan did not have to contend with a bunch of Clinton and Obama nominated judges, and Bush may as well have been a Democrat when it comes to amnesties for wetbacks. The SCOTUS has already held he has this authority. This delaying tactic by an Obama nominated and Democrat confirmed San Francisco judge is nothing more than the left pissing up a rope with a tame Liberal activist judge.

Unless McCarren Wharter is overturned and deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, President Trump has the same authority to ban undesirables as your precious Democrats.
Any UN resolution is, (pardon the pun) "trumped" by US law if there is a conflict. Remember I said peruse Reid v Covert?

Idaho

Partial truths at best. The whole asylum contention is negated because Mexico has offer assylum and it was turned down. Assylum seekers have to seek assylum in the first safe country they enter.

Quite apart from which, this storming the border is a full blown attempt to circumvent US sovereignty. The process in this case has been weaponised and will be put down as a real and present danger to the USA.

Then starts the process of tracking down responsible individuals and prosecuting them for conspiracy and sedition. Some might even qualify for treason if they are US citizens and can be shown by actions and documentary evidence to be trying to bring down the US.

Can’t happen soon enough.

Bcon

This article is just another of the many inane far left ideas that I see Rumitroid placing
Here. Very few, if any, of his posts make any sense especially if one has the betterment of our country at heart. Forcing your way into any country is not immigration. It is foreign invasion.

plainlogic

More blahblahblah from socialists liberals. Go climb fence to hemorrhoidville, where the pain in the arses live.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You already know the "Rtoid" can't process something as simple and common sensical as you posit. But we get it!

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

1. Who cares what the U.N. says? They should be ejected from this country post haste and we should not be a member. They do NOT (and never had) America's best interests at heart. They have been taking advantage of America long enough.

2. "Reasonable fear" of poverty is not a justifiable reason for "asylum".

3. "Credible fear" claims of persecution and torture may apply to the whole country of Honduras, does that mean the whole country can get asylum?

4. "Asylum" used to be based on "compassion" of the receiving country with a "limited" number of people (based upon the effect to the economy of our country). Now, liberals and socialists have falsely turned the concept of asylum into a "right" of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens DO NOT have the right to "demand" entry into this country.

5. As usual, the left and socialist left try to promote the idea that they are "compassionate", when in reality, they are looking for more votes to acquire more power to run everyone's lives as THEY think they should be run. They are so threatened by conservatives being elected by citizens, they want "illegals" to vote.

Alber

These people, coming from Honduras, have crossed the territory of Guatemala and entered Mexico, where they were offered asylum and work, according to official declarations of the Mexican authorities; but they did not accept it. Whoever is persecuted does not reject the refuge offered to him. These people are not persecuted for political or religious reasons, they want to come to the US seeking to improve their economy. Anyone who is a US citizen and agrees that anyone, when he sees fit, enters this country to obtain a better life, is attacking the rights of other citizens of this country. It is as if someone came to my home, entered through the door and told me: "I come to live in your house because I want to do it so." Surely he could die for breaking and entering. The law states that "My house is my castle" and the same applies to the country's border. I think that who defends this open border policy is a traitor to this country, who wants its destruction and therefore deserves some punishment. I do not know what these traitors are playing at. All this question of the caravans is something orchestrated by forces that are hostile to the USA and who supports the enemies of this nation must be judged and condemned for their acts of treason.
The invasion to the USA. Any similarity is pure coincidence.
Somewhere I have read that Vice-President Pence has linked George Soros and the government of Venezuela with the organization of the invading march of people from the Central American countries (Honduras, Belize, El Salvador and Guatemala, which logically many Mexicans will join), towards the USA border. I think that the American intelligence agencies should already know who are the promoters of this march, as well as the nature of those who compose it and have made it known to the administration.
The decisions emanating from Miraflores in Caracas are dictated from the Palace of the Revolution in Havana, which is an open secret. Nicolás Maduro is a puppet of the ruling government in Cuba and I suspect that this march is a maneuver similar to the one that the late Fidel Castro put into practice in the month of April 1980, when he promoted the mass exodus of Cubans to Florida to get oxygen for his regime, taking advantage that Carter, the President of the USA, had raised as a flag of his government the respect for human rights.
The Cuban Stalin, as a good blackmailer that he was, exploited the feelings of the Cuban exiles, who wanted to free their families from the oppression of Castro-Comunism, and deceptively stated that he would let go all those persons who were picked up in boats at the port of Mariel. The result was that those who crossed the Strait of Florida to rescue their families, had to choose among the members of the family, who they wanted to bring to the USA; because for each member of the family, they had to take a number of persons who were imposed on them, since otherwise the authorities would not permit to get any family member. Thus, Castro had the boats filled with men and women who were common prisoners (murderers, thieves, rapists), mentally ill and underworld elements of the worst kind, with a criminal record; freeing the country from these pernicious elements and creating a problem for the USA.
The modus operandi, in the case at hand, is the same and this march exhibits women and children, but for every woman or child there are four or five men in ages between 20 and 50 years old. Here women and children are equated to the relatives of exiles and men to those of the worst kind that we already mentioned, to which we can add terrorists. Boats of volunteers are not used now, ground vehicles are used and are paid for transportation, since the walking march is only for the news. These people are provided with water and food and places to shelter, wash and sleep. Who finances the expenses of these people?
It is important to note how Castro, astutely, used his greatest enemies, the Cuban exiles, whom he blackmailed and cheated, with the rescue of his relatives, in order to advance his aims. Now it is an organized march to create a problem in the USA, trying to obtain oxygen, decreasing the pressure on the Venezuelan regime and of course for the ruling regime in Cuba, which benefits from what its Venezuelan colony provides; but in this case there is not anyone blackmailed or cheated in the USA, it seems that the help those people are receiving from here, is granted knowingly, in order to harm the Republican government of the USA, specifically President Trump, with what is harmed the country and its citizens.
Who promotes this situation from the USA? Who wants to regain power at any cost and be able to take out one eye to see his adversary blind? Get your own conclusions!

Alber

The Helms-Burton Act clearly established that if a new migratory phenomenon was produced by Cuba, promoting the persons in that country to cross the Straits of Florida towards the USA, as happened in April 1980, it would be considered a hostile act against the USA; and a hostile act is an act of war. These caravans should be considered as a hostile act; that is, an act of war; and not only should the regular army be mobilized at the border, but act accordingly; and take internal measures with the people who are supporting this invasion, be it in word or deed.