Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Quinn
Asylum must be at a U.S. port of entry.
Thu Nov 1, 2018 6:02pm
167.88.160.226

There are two primary ways in which a person may apply for asylum in the United States: the affirmative process and the defensive process. Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.

Affirmative Asylum: A person who is not in removal proceedings may affirmatively apply for asylum through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). If the USCIS asylum officer does not grant the asylum application and the applicant does not have a lawful immigration status, he or she is referred to the immigration court for removal proceedings, where he or she may renew the request for asylum through the defensive process and appear before an immigration judge.
Defensive Asylum: A person who is in removal proceedings may apply for asylum defensively by filing the application with an immigration judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the Department of Justice. In other words, asylum is applied for “as a defense against removal from the U.S.” Unlike the criminal court system, EOIR does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own.

With or without counsel, an asylum seeker has the burden of proving that he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Asylum seekers often provide substantial evidence throughout the affirmative and defensive processes demonstrating either past persecution or that they have a “well-founded fear” of future persecution in their home country. However, the individual’s own testimony is usually critical to his or her asylum determination.

Certain factors bar individuals from asylum. With limited exceptions, individuals who fail to apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States will be barred from receiving asylum. Similarly, applicants who are found to pose a danger to the United States are barred from asylum.

  • Their Entry Is Not Illegal...Amadeus, Wed Oct 31 11:44pm
    We signed onto a treaty that allows asylum seekers to enter our country at any point they desire, without papers, without pre-approval, and when they are confronted by authorities, they may claim... more
    • Asylum must be at a U.S. port of entry. — Quinn, Thu Nov 1 6:02pm
      • Then There's This...Amadeus, Thu Nov 1 7:35pm
        The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the... more
        • And right isn't really that dedicated to paying attention to such trivialties from the UN. It guides US policy, which can be changed on a whim...which is what they are doing.
          • The US Is A Signatory To That Treaty...Amadeus, Thu Nov 1 9:05pm
            ...and that gives the treaty the weight of Constitutional law. So while it technically isn't US law, it has the power of it. Amadeus
            • Wherein the UN guidelines inform US policy...HeavyHemi, Thu Nov 1 11:07pm
              how they are implemented is up to the admin and there is quite wide latitude is the point. There's no reason do argue, the numerous court challenges with wins and losses make my point. We've also... more
              • There Is A Difference Between...Amadeus, Fri Nov 2 12:10am
                ...how things are supposed to work and how things actually work because of power dynamics. I certainly do get that. I realize that things are not always done the way they should be done. We have yet... more
                • Was it in contravention of *our law?HeavyHemi, Fri Nov 2 12:49am
                  As far as I know, no legal authority in the the US made that determination regarding torture. And we're conflating things. The Geneva Convention isn't the same topic in regards to immigration. I'm... more
                  • No, I Figured You Were Aware...Amadeus, Fri Nov 2 8:27am
                    ...based on your post. I was agreeing. I think it's similar in that we've signed onto treaties regarding torture, as well. Amadeus
                  • was legal to use torture techniques under the guise that the "enhanced interrogations" weren't technically torture and involved detainees NOT covered under the Geneva Convention.... more
                    • A Backhanded Acknowledgement...Amadeus, Fri Nov 2 7:02pm
                      ...of the obligations we had - you know, lip service to carefully observing them and toeing the line, but meanwhile, we're doing things that any simpleton understands are in violation of the... more
                    • has decided that either way. So technically, it is still in legal limbo as far as the US law is concerned despite the Geneva convention saying otherwise.
                      • I think there is U.S. legislation...Sia☺giah, Sat Nov 3 12:28am
                        https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/senate-torture-bill-cia/index.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States
                        • There is and there was legislation before.HeavyHemi, Sat Nov 3 2:26am
                          Until it's tested at the USSC and certain techniques codified a torture. There's quite a few in the GOP that would like to reverse this.
              • the treaty as they see fit. The meaning of treaties as statute or law, is determined by the courts.
          • Whoops a missing word...HeavyHemi, Thu Nov 1 9:00pm
            And the right,....
Click here to receive daily updates