Confusing to say the least

Maybe some facts will help us to understand our current situation with the people wanting to enter the United States.

From the United States Customs and Immigration Services website:

 Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm.

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States.

and then:

Under United States law, a refugee is someone who:

    • Is located outside of the United States
    • Is of special humanitarian concern to the United States
    • Demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group
    • Is not firmly resettled in another country
    • Is admissible to the United States

***********************************************************

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

    • Meet the definition of refugee
    • Are already in the United States
    • Are seeking admission at a port of entry

You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status.

If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States

Clear as mud

Let’s see, a refugee “Is located outside of the United States”.

Asylum status is available to those who “Meet the definition of refugee” but “Are already in the United States” or “Are seeking admission at a port of entry”.

We deserve better

Brutus

6 Responses to Confusing to say the least

  1. Karen Luse says:

    This is why people who are in law enforcement are crying for Congress to change the law. Law enforcement can do only that – enforce laws. The laws have made a mess of things. Immigrants learn to play the system for its faults and we are paying the price. Our representatives seem to be using this for political gain rather than fulfilling their responsibilities and working to resolve the issue swiftly and purposefully. Are we hearing debate in the media about what the law should be or how we should change the process? Not really. Just emotional pleas to take care of the poor people entering by the droves. Why are they all coming now in such huge numbers???… because they know that any wise country would correct these legal issues especially with all the media attention to the situation and they better get in before the laws change. But instead of working at the solution, we are playing the blame game. we are accusing each other and using photo opps and emotional drama to prove that our current president is at fault despite the fact that these laws existed and have been talked about for many presidents before him as needing change.

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      As near I can figure the Dem strategy appears to be to cultivate the votes of US citizen kids of the folks living here illegally. Right now citizen voters are split pretty evenly between the two parties. That’s part of why Dems are trying to start the conversation about giving 16 year olds the vote. They are trying to tip the balance. Adding another few million illegals now will pay huge dividends in keeping a majority less than two decades from now. So expect less clarity and no loophole closure. The GOP’s hands aren’t clean either. They tolerated illegal immigration for years because their business donors like the wage depression that comes with illegal workers. But they at least recognize the current surge is a total border breakdown that needs to be addressed.

      Like

    • Brutus says:

      Well said!

      Like

    • Anonymous says:

      Not all media debate and coverage is “just emotional pleas to take care of the poor people entering by the droves.” You can watch FOX or listen to some of the 24/7 talk radio shows …. Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin. Or you can read the Wall Street Journal. If you want a dual perspective, watch Meet the Press and Face the Nation on Sunday mornings, both of which have both Republican and Democrat guests. As for dramatic photos, both sides have used that tactic to appeal to different emotions.

      Like

  2. JerryK says:

    Julian Assange?

    Like

  3. Anonymous says:

    seems clear to me. it would be hard to be a sudanese refugee, for example, if you live in Milwaukee, unless you crossed the border illegally.

    they should have a program where community members can sponsor illegal immigrants by paying for their living expenses, providing them a place to live, or both.

    as long as supporters have nothing but lip service to offer there will always be pushback from people who think doing things legally is important.

    also, i don’t see much concern in this area for homeless citizens. are they not deserving of the same things being given to non-citizens who break our laws? can i round up some homeless people and take them for a free stay at the same hotels housing illegal immigrants?

    why the hell not?

    Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: