3 ms·

Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country i

Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. But crossing into the country illegally is a crime, even if you subsequently request asylum. Edit: Someone1234, I would reply directly but I’m rate limited. The incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than that. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice. Edit: A further reply to Someone1234: you are citing these accounts by advocates on one side of the issue as truth. The official government statements are very clear on the situations in which children will be separated from the adults they are traveling with when claiming asylum at a port of entry. All of them concern either fears of human trafficking or other concern that child is not safe with the adult. Do government employees lie? Yes. But a systematic lie like that, involving the repeated illegal detention of children, would not last very long. If there’s one thing federal judges don’t tolerate, it’s being lied to.

Someone1234 8y ago
That's inaccurate. This person applied for asylum at a port of entry and was immediately separated from his child: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum-says-his-toddler-was-taken-away-at-the-u-s-border https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum... This article goes into detail about several other cases. Quote: > But there is evidence that even families who seek asylum at ports of entry are being separated. One high-profile case involves a Congolese woman who sought asylum and still was separated from her 7-year-old daughter. In February, NPR's Burnett reported on the legal battle of Ms. L v. ICE. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family...
- mmirate 8y ago
  Since the grandparent is rate-limited, I'll point out for them that the incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than you seem to think. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    Per my second link, the separation was indefinite while the asylum claim was evaluated, and asylum eligibility appears to be the main criteria rather than establishing parental relationship (which could take as long as DNA tests to come back). Plus this claim: > Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. Was wrong no matter how it is justified.
cycrutchfield 8y ago
Are asylum seekers necessarily aware of that distinction?
- ihsw2 8y ago
  They are not treated like drug dealers, thrown to the ground and hand-cuffed and tossed into the back of a truck/cruiser. The asylum process is long and drawn out and involves constant communication where personnel resources permit (and like all government agencies they are understaffed and underfunded.)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ceejayoz 8y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 > Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section... https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/ https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylu... > U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are systematically violating U.S. and international law by blocking immigrants at international ports of entry on the southern border from entering the country so they can claim asylum. > The blocking works this way: In the precise middle of the international bridges, CBP agents stand, sentry-like, near the imaginary line dividing the two countries — a line often marked with a ceremonial metal plaque. The agents peer at everyone crossing, looking for people they think might be candidates for asylum. If the people say anything suggesting they might be requesting asylum — if they’re not Mexicans, and especially if they’re from Central America — the agents block their way and say to come back another time.
- marcoperaza 8y ago
  All the statute you are quoting says is that you may make a proper asylum claim despite already being in the US. The propriety of an asylum claim has nothing to do with the propriety of illegal entry prior to making it, nor does it wipe it away. Which is not to say that illegal entry is never excusable. Necessity is a general criminal defense, so if you can show that you really had no choice but to cross into the country illegally or face imminent death or serious injury, then you’ll be off the hook for the illegal entry charge.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
I believe you're simplifying that. 1. Refugees with legitimate requests are coming from Central and South America. 2. Many of those countries in question were result of US interference in their governments, leading to pro-US dictatorships 3. The refugees have come to the border crossings to petition for refugee status under international law 4. The US is a signatory for said international law 5. When refugees try to petition, CBP agents have actively blocked their entry to do the paperwork as required for claiming said status 6. Some have crossed illegally, and then unlike in prior administrations, criminal charges are levied 7. Families are intentionally being split up into different for-profit prisons 8. Children are split up, and there is no time limit for processing when they can get back with their parents 9. Deportations have been done where the parents are sent back, then the kids are. Nobody knows where they were sent This whole thing is a clusterfuck, based upon recent executive order and presidential blackmail of 'children for the wall' ( https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1007671131841671169 https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1007671131... ). I really don't know what else to say...

Someone1234 8y ago

That's inaccurate. This person applied for asylum at a port of entry and was immediately separated from his child: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum-says-his-toddler-was-taken-away-at-the-u-s-border https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/migrant-seeking-asylum... This article goes into detail about several other cases. Quote: > But there is evidence that even families who seek asylum at ports of entry are being separated. One high-profile case involves a Congolese woman who sought asylum and still was separated from her 7-year-old daughter. In February, NPR's Burnett reported on the legal battle of Ms. L v. ICE. https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family-separation-and-zero-tolerance-at-the-border https://www.npr.org/2018/06/19/621065383/what-we-know-family...

mmirate 8y ago
Since the grandparent is rate-limited, I'll point out for them that the incident you’re pointing out is more nuanced than you seem to think. To combat human trafficking, we separate children from adults we suspect may not be their parents, pending further investigation like interviews of the children and interrogation of the supposed parents. That has nothing to do with the recent headlines and is longstanding practice.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  Per my second link, the separation was indefinite while the asylum claim was evaluated, and asylum eligibility appears to be the main criteria rather than establishing parental relationship (which could take as long as DNA tests to come back). Plus this claim: > Applying for asylum at a port of entry is not a crime, and none of those people are being detained or separated from their kids. Was wrong no matter how it is justified.

cycrutchfield 8y ago

Are asylum seekers necessarily aware of that distinction?

ihsw2 8y ago
They are not treated like drug dealers, thrown to the ground and hand-cuffed and tossed into the back of a truck/cruiser. The asylum process is long and drawn out and involves constant communication where personnel resources permit (and like all government agencies they are understaffed and underfunded.)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ceejayoz 8y ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 > Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section... https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylum-central-america/ https://theintercept.com/2018/06/16/immigration-border-asylu... > U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are systematically violating U.S. and international law by blocking immigrants at international ports of entry on the southern border from entering the country so they can claim asylum. > The blocking works this way: In the precise middle of the international bridges, CBP agents stand, sentry-like, near the imaginary line dividing the two countries — a line often marked with a ceremonial metal plaque. The agents peer at everyone crossing, looking for people they think might be candidates for asylum. If the people say anything suggesting they might be requesting asylum — if they’re not Mexicans, and especially if they’re from Central America — the agents block their way and say to come back another time.

marcoperaza 8y ago
All the statute you are quoting says is that you may make a proper asylum claim despite already being in the US. The propriety of an asylum claim has nothing to do with the propriety of illegal entry prior to making it, nor does it wipe it away. Which is not to say that illegal entry is never excusable. Necessity is a general criminal defense, so if you can show that you really had no choice but to cross into the country illegally or face imminent death or serious injury, then you’ll be off the hook for the illegal entry charge.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

I believe you're simplifying that. 1. Refugees with legitimate requests are coming from Central and South America. 2. Many of those countries in question were result of US interference in their governments, leading to pro-US dictatorships 3. The refugees have come to the border crossings to petition for refugee status under international law 4. The US is a signatory for said international law 5. When refugees try to petition, CBP agents have actively blocked their entry to do the paperwork as required for claiming said status 6. Some have crossed illegally, and then unlike in prior administrations, criminal charges are levied 7. Families are intentionally being split up into different for-profit prisons 8. Children are split up, and there is no time limit for processing when they can get back with their parents 9. Deportations have been done where the parents are sent back, then the kids are. Nobody knows where they were sent This whole thing is a clusterfuck, based upon recent executive order and presidential blackmail of 'children for the wall' ( https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1007671131841671169 https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1007671131... ). I really don't know what else to say...