Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

bruto said:
Yes, once granted refugee status an asylum seeker becomes officially a refugee. But in US immigration law, the reverse is not the case. A person seeking refugee status initially through the mechanism of immigration, which is how the classification "refugee" is defined, CANNOT by definition be an asylum seeker in the way such a status is defined legally. And that is true even if international standards recognize that the thing a refugee seeks is asylum, and even if the ultimate goal of asylum seeking is to be classified as a refugee.

The process of becoming an official refugee is bound by rules and regulations. To be classified a refugee one must have passed through that process. The designation of "asylum seeker" is a process by which one can obtain the benefits of a refugee before having met the legal requirements, and at least in theory without having to meet all the specific requirements (which is why the law is specific that asylum is not dependent on the country of origin or the expressed policy of the United States).

Of course the two things are nearly equivalent, and the desired result is the same, but there is an important and fundamental legal distinction here, which seems to elude you. Throughout this thread you have made the point that the law, opinion and moral stance of the international community is trumped by the laws and policies of the United States. Here we are with a case in which the law of the United States is clear as to the difference, but you seem ready to deny it because of what Amnesty International says.
Click to expand...
Amnesty International knows a lot more about international law and refugees, than you.
 
Hercules56 said:
Amnesty International knows a lot more about international law and refugees, than you.
Click to expand...
So I would hope, but that is hardly relevant to how US immigration law treats different classes of people. As I think you have pointed out in the past, international law is not US law. We can argue forever, and even agree forever on the existential identity of refugees and asylum seekers, but it does not change how US immigration regulations treat the two.

And my point here is, that despite the current practices of the administration, and despite your apparent belief that all illegals should simply be sent away, American immigration law makes an exception in the case of asylum, expanding the potential eligibility for eventual classification as a refugee, in which consideration for asylum is made AFTER one has arrived in the United States, and explicitly without regard to country of origin or immigration status! Since classification as a refugee IS ITSELF a variety of immigration status, a difference exists by definition.
 
theprestige said:
International law is not a thing. It has no sovereignty. It has no enforcement.
Click to expand...
Treaties that the United States is party to are equivalent to federal law. Insofar as those treaties refer to, and/or require adherence to, international law, those laws are incorporated into federal law. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 provides a cause of action for violation of "the laws of nations" in U.S. courts (even for alien plaintiffs) for actions that occur on U.S. territory. However, sovereign immunity still applies. You cannot sue the United States. There is considerable Supreme Court case law on the subject.
 
theprestige said:
International law is not a thing. It has no sovereignty. It has no enforcement.
Click to expand...
It has enforcement from within. Treaties that the US is a party to are by US law required to be enforced. Not that we always do. Just ask Native American tribes.
 
JayUtah said:
Treaties that the United States is party to are equivalent to federal law. Insofar as those treaties refer to, and/or require adherence to, international law, those laws are incorporated into federal law. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 provides a cause of action for violation of "the laws of nations" in U.S. courts (even for alien plaintiffs) for actions that occur on U.S. territory. However, sovereign immunity still applies. You cannot sue the United States. There is considerable Supreme Court case law on the subject.
Click to expand...
That's national law.
 
theprestige said:
That's national law.
Click to expand...
U.S. federal law provides for the enforcement of elements of international law in U.S. courts. The laws vitalizing those causes of action are international law. There is considerable Supreme Court case law on the subject. If you believe an international law cannot be enforced upon you in the United States, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
 
JayUtah said:
U.S. federal law provides for the enforcement of elements of international law in U.S. courts. The laws vitalizing those causes of action are international law. There is considerable Supreme Court case law on the subject. If you believe an international law cannot be enforced upon you in the United States, you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It happens more than I think Prestige realizes.
 
acbytesla said:
Exactly. It happens more than I think Prestige realizes.
Click to expand...
I gather he’s trying to say that without incorporation in national law, international law has no inherent effect, which is a meaningless abstraction. Legal notions of enforcement by incorporation, jurisdiction, and venue are straightforward here. This goes back to 1798. That incorporation is the principal means of enforcing international law worldwide does not somehow render it pure vapor, no matter how much American exceptionalism imagines otherwise.
 
JayUtah said:
I gather he’s trying to say that without incorporation in national law, international law has no inherent effect, which is a meaningless abstraction. Legal notions of enforcement by incorporation, jurisdiction, and venue are straightforward here. This goes back to 1798. That incorporation is the principal means of enforcing international law worldwide does not somehow render it pure vapor, no matter how much American exceptionalism imagines otherwise.
Click to expand...
Where he's right is the simple fact that the US or any nation can and sometimes do ignore International law. And there is little that can be done. But countries have an interest in obeying International law. This idea that we shouldn't care is not pragmatic.
 
acbytesla said:
Where he's right is the simple fact that the US or any nation can and sometimes do ignore International law. And there is little that can be done. But countries have an interest in obeying International law. This idea that we shouldn't care is not pragmatic.
Click to expand...
I live in a state where people routinely ignore state law. In some cases there’s a vast amount of desert for them to do it in. And in other cases the enforcers are indifferent. The question is not whether enforcement is especially effective. The question is whether a mechanism exists for enforcement. There is one for international law. It’s the one intended by those who make the law and those who run nations.
 
Hercules56 said:
The USA has a maximum yearly asylum quota. Once that quota is reached, no more applicants should be allowed. How am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes they should be sent to their deaths then, yet more reasons why you should support the return of the 1000 jews on the St Louis in 1939. No exceptions should be made.
 
Hercules56 said:
I think I see what the problem is with asylum. Starting in the middle of the Biden administration, somebody let the whole world know that if people apply for asylum, they are allowed to stay in the USA while their court case goes through its process, even if it is ultimately determined that they're asylum application is absolutely bull ◊◊◊◊. So now everybody and their uncle and their second cousin is coming to the USA and it immediately applying for asylum, so they can stay here.

The problem with this is that it violates the international treaty on refugees, which clearly stipulates that people seeking asylum are required to apply as soon as they reach the first safe country.

And for almost all of the people coming from Latin America who are seeking asylum, the first safe country they encounter is Mexico. But they are not applying for asylum there because they really want to live in America. But that violates the international treaty on refugees.

Anyone who came to the USA through Mexico, and seeks asylum in America due to events in a third country, should be required to go back to Mexico and apply for asylum there first. Otherwise you are just taking advantage of the system and that is not fair.
Click to expand...
So it was really all Cuba's fault that the St Louis even got to the US in the first place they should have had to accept the jews there as first safe country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom