If I was trying to steel man the leftist argument, I'd take the position that we have to treat asylum claims as valid until proven otherwise because we can't allow people to die, and we have a duty to ensure the law is enforced. They can claim asylum up to however many days of being here, and it's a different process (afaik) so it doesn't have to strictly be at the border to claim it.
I'd also go on to say that immigration is a federal matter, and states have limited powers given to them, and blocking the border completely isn't one of them.
I'd go dig up citations, but frankly my day has been total shit and I'm not in the mood to go that far to make their arguments for them.
Now, my actual argument is that the federal government, while falling within the bounds of the law (largely, as enforcement is an executive function) it doesn't actually meet the intent of the law, and failing to enforce the laws speedily is a violation of the constitution, not to mention that we're bearing a burden that isn't feasible long term both in terms of money and crime.
Additionally, the states have limited rights with this already, and an unfunded mandate (which is what is effectively policy now) for states to carry the burden of illegals is likely unconstitutional. This has been litigated before a few times.
We'd also consider law enforcement on a local level being able to (in some circumstances) enforce federal law or states carrying federal law into their own legal system (think pot here, federally illegal), regardless of what the federal groups do (choose to do, told to do, etc). You also use the argument that states are ignoring pot laws, and the government is actively refusing to fuck them over, as such the federal government has shown a dereliction of duty and enforcement (this isn't a legal argument, so much as a moral one, it could sway some people) and the states then have to do so.
Under the rule, certain individuals who enter the United States through its southwest land border or adjacent coastal borders are presumed to be ineligible for asylum, unless they can demonstrate an exception to the rule or rebut the presumption. Individuals are encouraged to use lawful, safe, and orderly pathways to come to the United States.
While I don't agree with it, that's their argument (and the current policy).
I don't know the court case they're referring to off hand, and there's a lot of legal stuff to dig through and a lot of shifting precedent (and circuit court cases I don't know). I believe there is likely precedent for it, especially given the rather large gray area about enforcement powers of the executive branch.
Give me a week free of work and distractions and I could write a thesis on the argument with citations, but I don't have them now.
But yes, I agree that should be the case (having to apply at an embassy) barring actual exceptional circumstances (eg the embassy being blockaded by armed forces, no embassy, etc). Clearly the illegals can make it it to one since they can walk.
Except that's not a law passed by Congress. That's executive overreach. Congress has never once passed legislation that says illegal aliens stop being illegal if they yell the magic words.
The gray area is in the executive branch enforcement. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I'm just telling you their arguments, and the reality we live in. Congress doesn't want to take more responsibility for anything and so leave it to the executive.
If I was trying to steel man the leftist argument, I'd take the position that we have to treat asylum claims as valid until proven otherwise because we can't allow people to die, and we have a duty to ensure the law is enforced. They can claim asylum up to however many days of being here, and it's a different process (afaik) so it doesn't have to strictly be at the border to claim it.
I'd also go on to say that immigration is a federal matter, and states have limited powers given to them, and blocking the border completely isn't one of them.
I'd go dig up citations, but frankly my day has been total shit and I'm not in the mood to go that far to make their arguments for them.
Now, my actual argument is that the federal government, while falling within the bounds of the law (largely, as enforcement is an executive function) it doesn't actually meet the intent of the law, and failing to enforce the laws speedily is a violation of the constitution, not to mention that we're bearing a burden that isn't feasible long term both in terms of money and crime.
Additionally, the states have limited rights with this already, and an unfunded mandate (which is what is effectively policy now) for states to carry the burden of illegals is likely unconstitutional. This has been litigated before a few times.
We'd also consider law enforcement on a local level being able to (in some circumstances) enforce federal law or states carrying federal law into their own legal system (think pot here, federally illegal), regardless of what the federal groups do (choose to do, told to do, etc). You also use the argument that states are ignoring pot laws, and the government is actively refusing to fuck them over, as such the federal government has shown a dereliction of duty and enforcement (this isn't a legal argument, so much as a moral one, it could sway some people) and the states then have to do so.
Except asylum claims are only valid if they apply at an embassy.
They're just ignoring that part too.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum
While I don't agree with it, that's their argument (and the current policy).
I don't know the court case they're referring to off hand, and there's a lot of legal stuff to dig through and a lot of shifting precedent (and circuit court cases I don't know). I believe there is likely precedent for it, especially given the rather large gray area about enforcement powers of the executive branch.
Give me a week free of work and distractions and I could write a thesis on the argument with citations, but I don't have them now.
But yes, I agree that should be the case (having to apply at an embassy) barring actual exceptional circumstances (eg the embassy being blockaded by armed forces, no embassy, etc). Clearly the illegals can make it it to one since they can walk.
Except that's not a law passed by Congress. That's executive overreach. Congress has never once passed legislation that says illegal aliens stop being illegal if they yell the magic words.
The gray area is in the executive branch enforcement. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. I'm just telling you their arguments, and the reality we live in. Congress doesn't want to take more responsibility for anything and so leave it to the executive.