4 ms·

Not according to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whe

Not according to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "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 or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

pacala 7y ago
That allows the alien to apply for asylum, but does not say anything about whether their act of entering the US was or not breaking the law. We could entertain either or both of: A. Entering the US is not breaking any laws, no matter the manner in which it is accomplished. B. Applying for asylum grants an amnesty for the laws broken while entering the US.
- openasocket 7y ago
  It's (B), in that when applying for asylum things like illegal entry, including using fake documents or false testimony to gain entry, will not be held against you if your reason for doing so was to escape your persecution. See cases like Akinmade v. INS, Turcios v. INS, and Mamouzian v. Ashcroft
  - pacala 7y ago
    Assuming B, the intersection of set I = {people that entered the country illegally} and D = {people who made an asylum claim that was denied} consists of people that broke the law by entering the US illegally. Using fake documents / false testimony to make an invalid asylum request is extra damning. For the central american migrants at the border, this may well be more than 75% of them.
    - openasocket 7y ago
      You're assuming people know in advance whether or not they have a valid asylum claim, and that the court case will determine perfectly whether or not a claim was valid. Regardless, the result of either illegal entry and having an asylum claim rejected is deportation, so the distinction is academic.

pacala 7y ago

That allows the alien to apply for asylum, but does not say anything about whether their act of entering the US was or not breaking the law. We could entertain either or both of: A. Entering the US is not breaking any laws, no matter the manner in which it is accomplished. B. Applying for asylum grants an amnesty for the laws broken while entering the US.

openasocket 7y ago
It's (B), in that when applying for asylum things like illegal entry, including using fake documents or false testimony to gain entry, will not be held against you if your reason for doing so was to escape your persecution. See cases like Akinmade v. INS, Turcios v. INS, and Mamouzian v. Ashcroft
- pacala 7y ago
  Assuming B, the intersection of set I = {people that entered the country illegally} and D = {people who made an asylum claim that was denied} consists of people that broke the law by entering the US illegally. Using fake documents / false testimony to make an invalid asylum request is extra damning. For the central american migrants at the border, this may well be more than 75% of them.
  - openasocket 7y ago
    You're assuming people know in advance whether or not they have a valid asylum claim, and that the court case will determine perfectly whether or not a claim was valid. Regardless, the result of either illegal entry and having an asylum claim rejected is deportation, so the distinction is academic.