3 ms·

Crossing into the US not at a lawful port of entry to apply for asylum is legal. According to Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is phy

Crossing into the US not at a lawful port of entry to apply for asylum is legal. 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

wang_li 7y ago
Not sure precisely what point you're making, but it's possible that you're saying that the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US. That's not what the law says. If you're not saying that, then what you wrote is not responsive to the person you replied to.
- openasocket 7y ago
  > the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum
  - wang_li 7y ago
    Paragraph 8 from your link: > The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings. Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving. It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers illegally entering the US via the southern border are not refugees and do not qualify for asylum. This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.
    - openasocket 7y ago
      > that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided Of course not, that's where bail hearings come into play. The state can't keep an asylum claimee detained indefinitely without providing due process and evidence this person is a flight risk. >This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras. Seriously? Mexico is hardly a safe place if you are trying to escape gang violence. Hell, the US currently has multiple travel warnings out against various parts of Mexico. The ACLU is currently filing suit fighting back against exactly this mentality.
      - blackflame7000 7y ago
        How can they determine a proper bail for a person they are trying to vet in the first place? If El Chapo showed up I don't think he would care much.

wang_li 7y ago

Not sure precisely what point you're making, but it's possible that you're saying that the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US. That's not what the law says. If you're not saying that, then what you wrote is not responsive to the person you replied to.

openasocket 7y ago
> the intention to apply for asylum provides you with legal rights to enter the US Sort of, yeah. Check out Akinmade v NIS as an example: https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 https://openjurist.org/196/f3d/951 . Akinmade entered the US with a fake Canadian passport to request asylum. He was granted asylum
- wang_li 7y ago
  Paragraph 8 from your link: > The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) placed him in detention and commenced exclusion proceedings. Yes, people can apply for asylum after entering the country unlawfully. No, that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided. Nor does your illegal entry bar you from applying or receiving. It's notable though that the vast majority of asylum seekers illegally entering the US via the southern border are not refugees and do not qualify for asylum. This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras.
  - openasocket 7y ago
    > that doesn't mean you get free reign of the country while your case is decided Of course not, that's where bail hearings come into play. The state can't keep an asylum claimee detained indefinitely without providing due process and evidence this person is a flight risk. >This is easily seen by the fact that they are crossing from their home country into Mexico and not applying for asylum even though Mexico is largely a safe place to live compared to, for example, Honduras. Seriously? Mexico is hardly a safe place if you are trying to escape gang violence. Hell, the US currently has multiple travel warnings out against various parts of Mexico. The ACLU is currently filing suit fighting back against exactly this mentality.
    - blackflame7000 7y ago
      How can they determine a proper bail for a person they are trying to vet in the first place? If El Chapo showed up I don't think he would care much.