This could be interesting
Supreme Court questions what it means to be ‘in’ the US
A fight at the Supreme Court over the government’s power to block asylum seekers from reaching ports along the Mexican border may come down to the definition of the word “in.”.
There were some prickly moments as the justices heard arguments Tuesday about the legality of a “metering” policy the Obama administration experimented with — and the first Trump administration adopted more broadly — under which Customs and Border Protection agents turned back asylum seekers at the Mexican border.
A federal judge in San Diego and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the practice is illegal because federal law entitles any foreigner who is “physically present in the United States [or] arrives in the United States” to pursue an asylum claim.
That law needs to be ended, but, no way to do so with the way Democrats love them some illegals
Real Americans they do not care so much about
The court’s conservative majority appeared likely to conclude that the 1996 law applies only to people who make it “in” to the U.S., and not to those stopped at the border.
“Do you think someone who comes to the front door of a house and knocks at the door has arrived ‘in’ the house? The person may have arrived ‘at’ the house,” Justice Samuel Alito said to the lawyer arguing for the asylum seekers, Kelsi Corkran.
We don’t have to let them in. Let them apply for asylum outside the US and wait to see
However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said turning people away could violate treaty obligations and lead to tragedy, just as the U.S.’ decision to refuse ships carrying Jewish refugees did in World War II.
“The majority of those people were shipped back or had to go back from where they came and were killed,” Sotomayor said. “That’s what we’re doing here.”
BTW, that was the Democratic president FDR doing that. Also, it’s a weird flex since Democrats hate Jews and take the side of Islamic jihad groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and nations like Iran.
Basically, it looks like, based on the arguments and discussion at SCOTUS, that they will rule that the U.S. doesn’t have to allow anyone into the US just because they’re screaming asylum, which at least 90% do not qualify for. The “in” word is important, because they are really not in the US.
If someone knocks at your door, do you have the right to not allow them into your house?
However, I can foresee a problem: the big, beautiful border wall is not directly on our border with Mexico, but anywhere from a few yards to a mile inside the United States. In theory, an asylum seeker could walk right up to the border fence and claim asylum at that point, being inside the United States. The US could tell him that he needs to go to an American consulate in Mexico, several of which — Ciudad Juárez, Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo, Nogales, and Tijuana — are very close to the border, and make his application there. While our embassies are considered the legal territory of the US, consulates are not, so restricting asylum applications to consulates and not our embassy means that they would not be “in the US.”
Odd how as terrible as our good friends on the left claim the US of A is under the evil, reich-wing President Trump, the foreigners keep trying to get in!
According to USA.gov:
How to seek asylum in the U.S.
To seek asylum, you must already be in the U.S. and believe you will be in danger of persecution if you return to your country.
_________________________________________
Even with our current troubles, the U.S. is still more attractive, offering more possiblities for seekers, than their home nations.
DHS is spending $38 BILLION buying warehouses to turn into detention facilities for immigrants.
DHS also blocks any oversight of conditions at the facilities (bathrooms, sewers, temperature regulation, food, medical care, lights).
Has it come to this?
https://borderhawk.news/exclusive-ice-urges-utah-politicians-to-not-release-mexican-illegal-charged-for-slitting-womans-throat-in-salt-lake-city/
Rimjob is probably worried about his well being.