So what is wrong with making the "refugee" procession...

[Raoul_Luke]

Present itself at an official border station, and be processed one at a time so that those with obvious non-verifyable "refugee" claims (or lacking identification) can be turned away? Even if you believe in the "refugee" provision that allows some immigrants to circumvent the normal immigration process, surely you still believe in keeping it orderly (and controlled) as outlined above, don't you?

 

[ObamacareForever]

Present itself at an official border station, and be processed one at a time so that those with obvious non-verifyable "refugee" claims (or lacking identification) can be turned away? Even if you believe in the "refugee" provision that allows some immigrants to circumvent the normal immigration process, surely you still believe in keeping it orderly (and controlled) as outlined above, don't you?

Yes, the immigrant caravan is likely headed for a port of entry to claim asylum which is a normal means of immigrating legally. The majority will rightfully receive it.
The only reason it wouldn't be orderly is the Trump administration's utter incompetence.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Yes, the immigrant caravan is likely headed for a port of entry to claim asylum which is a normal means of immigrating legally. The majority will rightfully receive it.
The only reason it wouldn't be orderly is the Trump administration's utter incompetence.

Is there anything in the immigration law that provides for "refugee" status requiring that we let them in while their case is considered? I'd be interested to know if we are really powerless to deny someone entry until we know what their actual status is.

 

[RickWA]

Is there anything in the immigration law that provides for "refugee" status requiring that we let them in while their case is considered? I'd be interested to know if we are really powerless to deny someone entry until we know what their actual status is.

According to the UN, once a country offers asylum to “refugees”, no other downstream countries are required to do so. Mexico offered asylum. The “refugees” declined and continue northward.

Their claim is invalidated. Legally. They don’t want mere “asylum” or safety from their tyrannical home regimes - as demonstrated by their refusal of prior offer. They specifically want the USA. Don’t let lefty call this what it is not. Never cede terminology to the lying progressive hordes. This is not a matter of “asylum”. Nope, nope, and NOPE.

 

[georgephillip]

Present itself at an official border station, and be processed one at a time so that those with obvious non-verifyable "refugee" claims (or lacking identification) can be turned away? Even if you believe in the "refugee" provision that allows some immigrants to circumvent the normal immigration process, surely you still believe in keeping it orderly (and controlled) as outlined above, don't you?

Migrants from previous caravans who have presented themselves at Points of Entry in order to file a claim of political asylum have been told Trump is not accepting any such claims at this time. "America is full" in spite of US and international laws which make this a crime.

https://medium.com/s/story/timeline-us-intervention-central-america-a9bea9ebc148

"At the margins of the mainstream discursive stalemate over immigration lies over a century of historical U.S. intervention that politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle seem determined to silence.

"Since Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 declared the U.S.’s right to exercise an 'international police power' in Latin America, the U.S. has cut deep wounds throughout the region, leaving scars that will last for generations to come.

"This history of intervention is inextricable from the contemporary Central American crisis of internal and international displacement and migration."

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Migrants from previous caravans who have presented themselves at Points of Entry in order to file a claim of political asylum have been told Trump is not accepting any such claims at this time. "America is full" in spite of US and international laws which make this a crime.

https://medium.com/s/story/timeline-us-intervention-central-america-a9bea9ebc148

"At the margins of the mainstream discursive stalemate over immigration lies over a century of historical U.S. intervention that politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle seem determined to silence.

"Since Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 declared the U.S.’s right to exercise an 'international police power' in Latin America, the U.S. has cut deep wounds throughout the region, leaving scars that will last for generations to come.

"This history of intervention is inextricable from the contemporary Central American crisis of internal and international displacement and migration."

So you are saying that a sovereign nation lacks the ability to limit the number of "refugees" they accept? If the entire nation of Afghanistan - every last citizen of that country - applies for "asylum" in the US, have we no choice but to begin making arrangements to bring them all here?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So you are saying that a sovereign nation lacks the ability to limit the number of "refugees" they accept? If the entire nation of Afghanistan - every last citizen of that country - applies for "asylum" in the US, have we no choice but to begin making arrangements to bring them all here?

Nope. There’s no obligation to bring them here. But if they present themselves at a point of entry and seek asylum, our laws require that the request be considered. Trump, of course, says he can unilaterally amend those laws.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Nope. There’s no obligation to bring them here. But if they present themselves at a point of entry and seek asylum, our laws require that the request be considered. Trump, of course, says he can unilaterally amend those laws.

So if the entire population of Afghanistan presented itself at a point of entry, we are obligated to "consider their requests? Do we or don't we have the right to limit the number of "refugee" status requests we "consider?"

 

[MrMike]

According to the UN, once a country offers asylum to “refugees”, no other downstream countries are required to do so. Mexico offered asylum. The “refugees” declined and continue northward.

Their claim is invalidated. Legally. They don’t want mere “asylum” or safety from their tyrannical home regimes - as demonstrated by their refusal of prior offer. They specifically want the USA. Don’t let lefty call this what it is not. Never cede terminology to the lying progressive hordes. This is not a matter of “asylum”. Nope, nope, and NOPE.

Interesting, I did not realize that.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

So if the entire population of Afghanistan presented itself at a point of entry, we are obligated to "consider their requests? Do we or don't we have the right to limit the number of "refugee" status requests we "consider?"

We do if our laws are changed. But Trump can’t unilaterally change the laws.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Is there anything in the immigration law that provides for "refugee" status requiring that we let them in while their case is considered? I'd be interested to know if we are really powerless to deny someone entry until we know what their actual status is.

They aren't just given free reign while their case is being reviewed. They are let in the country but they are kept essentially in prison camps till their case can be processed which can take years.