Unlike 2018 asylum ban, INA doesn’t explicitly contradict this. But it does provide for SPECIFIC CASES to bar someone from asylum for going thru a 3rd country—like “safe 3rd” diplomatic agreement, or “firmly resettling.” Easy to argue Congress saw those as exceptions to the rule.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Show this thread
-
As with the stalled 2018 ban, this regulation allows people to be considered for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture—which are harder to get and offer fewer protections/rights than asylum. I explained the diff here:https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18061484/trump-asylum-caravan-border …
Show this thread -
Bc of US “metering” policy, waits to enter legally at port of entry to seek asylum are currently weeks long at many points along border. 1000s of Central Americans who arrived @ port weeks ago will now be barred from asylum bc they decided to wait instead of entering illegally.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Guess Europeans can all afford airline tickets with no stopovers.
-
These actions would be specific to the ‘southern border.’ Actions aimed specifically at POC.
#TrumpIsARacist#TrumpIsABigot#TrumpIsAWhiteSupremacist - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Are we dancing around the term "final solution"?
-
No per international law they must seek asylum in the nearest safe country. They didn't do that. Also they rejected offers of asylum in Mexico.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I guess his wives had direct flights after a short refueling stop on Epstein Island.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That makes sense. Per international law they are supposed to seek asylum in the nearest safe country. Not one 1000s of miles away.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.