That’s not relevant to the discussion about whether they’re here legally.
Asylum statutes and the code of federal regulations lay out a process for resolving the question of whether a person is a refugee. While the process is pending, the claimants are legally allowed to remain in the United Stares. If they default or their claim of refugee status is denied, they are removed or remain here illegally. If they are found to be refugees, they are allowed to legally remain.
The legality of their presence is never ambiguous or vague.
These people have people have pending claims of asylum. They are legally within the United States. And to the extent that this stunt moved them away from the location of their scheduled adjudication, it contributes to the problem of “illegal immigration.”
No it’s not at all relevant to the conversation I was having about whether these 50 people are legally in the United States. Feel free to go back and review the discussion and see that for yourself, I’m not particularly keen on trying to find a way to dumb it down anymore than I did in my last post.It's very relevant and at the heart of the discussion.
And you ignore the question I specifically asked (as you normally do) in regards to how asylum is interpreted in our legal system and how subjective and vague that criteria for asylum seekers is.
You can't bring yourself to admit the interpretation varies widely depending on which party is in power. Because the whole concept of "asylum" comes to a screeching halt when one can literally apply it to any emerging crisis. You've had some Democrats trying to say these illegals from Central America need asylum from climate change.
Yes, asylum rationale is super subjective. So, feel free to counter...
It's very relevant and at the heart of the discussion.
And you ignore the question I specifically asked (as you normally do) in regards to how asylum is interpreted in our legal system and how subjective and vague that criteria for asylum seekers is.
You can't bring yourself to admit the interpretation varies widely depending on which party is in power. Because the whole concept of "asylum" comes to a screeching halt when one can literally apply it to any emerging crisis. You've had some Democrats trying to say these illegals from Central America need asylum from climate change.
Yes, asylum rationale is super subjective. So, feel free to counter...
He still ignored it lol
The legal definition of refugee can be as vague and subjective as you want it to be. You can be completely right. Or you could be wrong because it’s even MORE subjective than you say.
Still wouldn’t affect whether these people, whose asylum claims haven’t been adjudicated, are legally allowed to remain here.
The legal definition of refugee can be as vague and subjective as you want it to be. You can be completely right. Or you could be wrong because it’s even MORE subjective than you say.
Still wouldn’t affect whether these people, whose asylum claims haven’t been adjudicated, are legally allowed to remain here.
The legal definition of refugee can be as vague and subjective as you want it to be. You can be completely right. Or you could be wrong because it’s even MORE subjective than you say.
Still wouldn’t affect whether these people, whose asylum claims haven’t been adjudicated, are legally allowed to remain here.
It’s a bunch of BS…That’s not relevant to the discussion about whether they’re here legally.
Asylum statutes and the code of federal regulations lay out a process for resolving the question of whether a person is a refugee. While the process is pending, the claimants are legally allowed to remain in the United Stares. If they default or their claim of refugee status is denied, they are removed or remain here illegally. If they are found to be refugees, they are allowed to legally remain.
The legality of their presence is never ambiguous or vague.
These people have people have pending claims of asylum. They are legally within the United States. And to the extent that this stunt moved them away from the location of their scheduled adjudication, it contributes to the problem of “illegal immigration.”
Did it ever occur to anybody that maybe part of what makes places like Texas and Arizona awesome is that they are border states with lots of immigrants (legal and illegal)? Last I checked, Phoenix, Dallas, and Austin are 3 of the lowest crime (per capita) cities in America with tons of economic opportunity. How is this possible if these places are overrun, like everybody tries to pretend?
MV gave them sanctuary. They took them in, gave them shelter, fed them, cleaned them, then raised several hundred thousand dollars in a matter of hours that was given to them. They then put them in contact with the proper authorities and gave them immigration lawyers. They then relocated them to a safe shelter under the control of the proper government officials.
This is what texas and florida is supposed to be doing with our federal money. Maybe we should give it to mv?
It’s funny to watch the liberals hang out in the Desantis thread or any thread with Trump in it while avoiding threads talking about apple sauce Joe and his “ I wake up in a whole new world everyday “ adventure. I mean I understand why , it’s just funny to watch .
MV gave them sanctuary. They took them in, gave them shelter, fed them, cleaned them, then raised several hundred thousand dollars in a matter of hours that was given to them. They then put them in contact with the proper authorities and gave them immigration lawyers. They then relocated them to a safe shelter under the control of the proper government officials.
This is what texas and florida is supposed to be doing with our federal money. Maybe we should give it to mv?