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.
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.
I don't care for their arguments, nor to entertain them as though they were genuine rather than the smokescreen they really are.
I will not treat the left as though they're acting in good faith. For more than two centuries the left has never acted in good faith.