What is pulling America Apart?

[Ana the Ist]

In this video that you provided:
The expert says that the asylum seeker comes in at a port of entry and is given the opportunity to file an asylum claim.

He's describing the legal process...but that doesn't mean they can't claim asylum after crossing illegally.

He says that they then come in, they aren't given legal status

Exactly....they don't have a legal status.

Guess what that makes them? Illegal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this video that you provided:
The expert says that the asylum seeker comes in at a port of entry and is given the opportunity to file an asylum claim.
He says that they then come in, they aren't given legal status but they are an asylum applicant

The above doesn't mean that this person is illegally in the country.

To be clear...

What you think is happening is that the Border Patrol is making record numbers of apprehensions...

Southern border apprehensions hit a record 2.4 million in fiscal 2022

Border officials encountered a record of almost 2.4 million migrants at the southern border in fiscal 2022, shattering the old record of 1.7 million set just a year earlier, according to numbers released late Friday by Customs and Border Protection.

www.azmirror.com

Of people crossing the border illegally, but they aren't the ones clogging up the asylum system...they all get deported lol....it's a separate group of millions crossing legally that are clogging up the asylum system lol.

That's what you imagine is happening?

 

[stevil]

To be clear...

What you think is happening is that the Border Patrol is making record numbers of apprehensions...

I've never said this, nor implied this

Of people crossing the border illegally, but they aren't the ones clogging up the asylum system...

People crossing the border illegally aren't asylum seekers, they haven't lodged an asylum claim and don't have a court date, so they can't be clogging up the asylum system. The system doesn't know about them and if they get caught, they won't be found in the asylum system. They will be deported or locked up for being illegally in the US.

they all get deported lol....it's a separate group of millions crossing legally that are clogging up the asylum system lol.

That's what you imagine is happening?

Only people that have lodged an Asylum claim can be in the asylum system/process. That's not hard to understand is it?

 

[stevil]

He's describing the legal process...but that doesn't mean they can't claim asylum after crossing illegally.

They don't cross illegally. They cross legally at the port of call, they meet Border Control and they ask to make an Asylum claim.

Exactly....they don't have a legal status.

Guess what that makes them? Illegal.

Nope, their status is as an Asylum applicant. There is nothing illegal about being an asylum applicant.

 

[stevil]

They do arrest them...that's when they ask for asylum.

Nope. They meet them at the border and talk to them. They don't place them under arrest.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They don't cross illegally. They cross legally at the port of call, they meet Border Control and they ask to make an Asylum claim.

Hilarious. Border Patrol works between ports. Customs works at a port.

Nope, their status is as an Asylum applicant.

That's not a status.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nope. They meet them at the border and talk to them. They don't place them under arrest.

Of course they do...they arrest them for crossing illegally lol.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've never said this, nor implied this

It doesn't matter if you said it or implied it....it's fact.

People crossing the border illegally aren't asylum seekers,

Sure they are.

they haven't lodged an asylum claim and don't have a court date,

They do that after they get arrested.

Only people that have lodged an Asylum claim can be in the asylum system/process. That's not hard to understand is it?

Look up whether or not someone can cross the border illegally and then apply for asylum. I'm done handing you evidence if you aren't going to look at it.

 

[stevil]

Of course they do...they arrest them for crossing illegally lol.

Here is an official information page from Arizona

Asylum at the Border: Frequently Asked Questions | Green Evans-Schroeder | Tempe Immigration Lawyers

Green Evans-Schroeder, a Tucson immigration law firm, provides key insights in this FAQ guide to help you understand asylum at the border and navigate your legal rights.

www.arizonaimmigration.net

It seems in a way we were both wrong
While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border.

The law about entering in a Port of entry, applies to all non citizens crossing the USA border.
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border.

But of course this means that it is NOT illegal for non citizens to enter at a port of entry.

So, some asylum seekers follow the proper procedure and don't break any laws by coming into USA at a Port of Entry and then seeking to submit an Asylum claim.

But some asylum seekers break the law and cross at a place other than the Port of Entry. If they get caught or turn themselves into the authorities they can be charged for illegal entry, but they can also submit an Asylum claim. It is only once they submit an Asylum claim that they become an Asylum seeker. If they haven't submitted a claim, they are just simply illegally in the USA.

For asylum seekers that enter at a place other than a Port of Entry, the authorities may or may not charge them for illegal entry
When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection, there are two possibilities. First, they may be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center.

When the Asylum seeker process is kicked off, the following applies
Asylum seekers are subject to expedited removal, which is an accelerated process that allows the Department of Homeland Security to perform rapid deportations. All asylum seekers are subject to expedited removal, regardless of whether they present themselves to immigration officials at a port of entry, or they are apprehended somewhere else near the border.

However, they can stay if reasonable fear is claimed.
However, if someone in either of these situations expresses a fear of returning to their countries, their rapid deportations are suspended. Those subject to expedited removal are detained and will receive credible fear interviews. On the other hand, those subject to reinstatement of removal are detained and will receive reasonable fear interviews.

This doesn't get them into the USA just yet. They first get to participate in reasonable fear interviews.

WHAT ARE CREDIBLE AND REASONABLE FEAR INTERVIEWS?​

There is not much difference between credible fear and reasonable fear interviews. The purpose of each interview is to determine whether the person asking for asylum actually has a story that is believable, and also whether the circumstances of the story rise to the legal level required to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or the Convention Against Torture. Credible and reasonable fear interviews are conducted by asylum officers.

It can take quite a while before these people can participate in these interviews.
In the past, asylum seekers who arrived at a POE were typically transported directly to an ICE detention center to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. The interviews have historically taken anywhere between 2 weeks and 2 months to complete, depending on the Asylum Office's staffing resources. However, since April 2018, Customs and Border Protection has been using a policy called "metering" at the ports of entry. Metering is a process that limits the number of people who can request asylum at a U.S.-Mexico border port of entry each day. Asylum seekers who approach a port of entry are told turn around and to go to a designated location to put their names on a waitlist

The waitlist can take from 2 weeks to two months.

For those who apply for asylum at a port of entry, the credible or reasonable fear interview may take place at or near the border, or they may be transferred to an ICE detention facility in the interior of the U.S. to await their interviews.

So asylum seekers that are at a port of entry, they get detained (NOT arrested, as they haven't done anything illegal) and held at an ICE detention facility, and they wait there, to have their reasonable fear interviews.

After the credible or reasonable fear interview, the asylum officer will take some time to consider the evidence that she collected during the interview process.

They remain detained until the results of the interview are assessed and a determination is made.
An asylum officer can render a decision within a few days, or it may take a few weeks.

So what happens if the assylum officer determines that the asylum is probably warranted?
If the asylum officer returns a positive determination, the asylum seeker is allowed to start formal removal proceedings with an immigration judge in the immigration court. The process of applying for asylum with an immigration judge is much longer. If the asylum seeker remains detained, the process will normally last between 4-8 months.

So far the asylum seeker has waited (in a detention facility) 2 weeks to two months to have an interview. Then they have waited (in the detention facility) a few days, to a few weeks for an outcome from their interview. Then they have waited (in the detention facility) 4-8 months for a judge to make a determination.

If the judge gives them a positive result
If the asylum seeker is in detention, he or she will be released. If the asylum seeker wins asylum, he or she may apply for lawful permanent residency approximately one year later, and may ultimately apply for citizenship through the naturalization process five years after that.

Asylum seekers going through the correct process typically are detained for the whole time
Asylum seekers without prior deportations who arrive at a port of entry. Asylum seekers who have never received prior deportation orders who request asylum at a port of entry are considered to be "arriving aliens" who are subject to "mandatory detention." CBP, ICE, and the immigration judges all consider this group of asylum seekers to be ineligible for release on bond at any time during their legal proceedings.

Except when...
The only exception recognized by these government agencies is that CBP or ICE may, in their discretion, decide to release certain asylum seekers on "parole." For example, when families arrive at the borders, CBP still frequently releases young children and their mothers on parole before they even have their credible fear interviews.

However
However, for those who are detained for credible fear interviews, it is very rare for ICE to grant requests for release on parole, even after asylum seekers pass their credible fear interviews.

But if it's taking way too long
There are, however, valid legal arguments that depriving this category of asylum seekers from receiving bond hearings after being detained for 180 days is unconstitutional. In order to assert these rights, however, asylum seekers must file petitions for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.

So if they are out on "parole" or out on habeas corpus then they are in the country legally, but need to turn up for their court case when it finally eventuates.

It is one hell of a process. Asylum seekers coming into a Port of Entry have committed no crimes and done nothing illegal, and yet they are detained for several months. If it takes too long or if they otherwise qualify for parole, they might be allowed out of detention and into the country. But at no point are these people illegal.
Unless they have entered at a place other than a Port of Entry or if they overstay and do not turn up to court or if they lose in court and stay in the country.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here is an official information page from Arizona

Asylum at the Border: Frequently Asked Questions | Green Evans-Schroeder | Tempe Immigration Lawyers

Green Evans-Schroeder, a Tucson immigration law firm, provides key insights in this FAQ guide to help you understand asylum at the border and navigate your legal rights.

www.arizonaimmigration.net

It seems in a way we were both wrong
While many asylum seekers follow the proper procedure by applying for asylum at a port of entry, many asylum seekers continue to illegally cross the border.

I was saying this the entire time.

The law about entering in a Port of entry, applies to all non citizens crossing the USA border.
Under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1325, it is a crime for any noncitizen to enter (or even to "attempt" to enter) the United States anywhere other than a designated entry point, or "port of entry" or "POE." Therefore, in order for asylum seekers to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution for illegal entry to the United States, they must seek asylum at a port of entry along the border.

Again, read the wording...it's a crime to cross the border anywhere but a port of entry.

But of course this means that it is NOT illegal for non citizens to enter at a port of entry.

Which is why I emphatically repeated it's about people illegally crossing the border.

But some asylum seekers break the law and cross at a place other than the Port of Entry. If they get caught or turn themselves into the authorities they can be charged for illegal entry, but they can also submit an Asylum claim. It is only once they submit an Asylum claim that they become an Asylum seeker. If they haven't submitted a claim, they are just simply illegally in the USA.

Well they're still here illegally....they simply cannot be deported until their asylum hearing happens.

Illegal status but not deportable.

Which becomes a problem when you watch the video again and you see the expert agreeing the vast majority have no valid claims. On top of that, you have places like NY with a 9 year wait on a preliminary hearing.

For asylum seekers that enter at a place other than a Port of Entry, the authorities may or may not charge them for illegal entry

If I had to guess....8 USC 1324 if they aren't alone.

When they are apprehended by Customs and Border Protection, there are two possibilities. First, they may be criminally charged with illegal entry (a misdemeanor) or illegal reentry (a felony) and, only after they finish their criminal cases, further detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. Second, they may not be prosecuted, and simply detained by ICE to await their interviews in an immigration detention center.

Obviously we don't have detention space for so many people, so a very large number are simply let go....or transported to their destination on the taxpayer dime.

When the Asylum seeker process is kicked off, the following applies
Asylum seekers are subject to expedited removal, which is an accelerated process that allows the Department of Homeland Security to perform rapid deportations. All asylum seekers are subject to expedited removal, regardless of whether they present themselves to immigration officials at a port of entry, or they are apprehended somewhere else near the border.

I'm assuming that applies if they don't pass the "credible fear" standard.

However, they can stay if reasonable fear is claimed.

Exactly.

However, if someone in either of these situations expresses a fear of returning to their countries, their rapid deportations are suspended. Those subject to expedited removal are detained and will receive credible fear interviews. On the other hand, those subject to reinstatement of removal are detained and will receive reasonable fear interviews.

This doesn't get them into the USA just yet. They first get to participate in reasonable fear interviews.

WHAT ARE CREDIBLE AND REASONABLE FEAR INTERVIEWS?​

There is not much difference between credible fear and reasonable fear interviews. The purpose of each interview is to determine whether the person asking for asylum actually has a story that is believable, and also whether the circumstances of the story rise to the legal level required to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or the Convention Against Torture. Credible and reasonable fear interviews are conducted by asylum officers.

It can take quite a while before these people can participate in these interviews.
In the past, asylum seekers who arrived at a POE were typically transported directly to an ICE detention center to await their credible or reasonable fear interviews. The interviews have historically taken anywhere between 2 weeks and 2 months to complete, depending on the Asylum Office's staffing resources. However, since April 2018, Customs and Border Protection has been using a policy called "metering" at the ports of entry. Metering is a process that limits the number of people who can request asylum at a U.S.-Mexico border port of entry each day. Asylum seekers who approach a port of entry are told turn around and to go to a designated location to put their names on a waitlist

The waitlist can take from 2 weeks to two months.

For those who apply for asylum at a port of entry, the credible or reasonable fear interview may take place at or near the border, or they may be transferred to an ICE detention facility in the interior of the U.S. to await their interviews.

So asylum seekers that are at a port of entry, they get detained (NOT arrested, as they haven't done anything illegal) and held at an ICE detention facility, and they wait there, to have their reasonable fear interviews.

That would be nice...but isn't likely happening.

After the credible or reasonable fear interview, the asylum officer will take some time to consider the evidence that she collected during the interview process.

They remain detained until the results of the interview are assessed and a determination is made.
An asylum officer can render a decision within a few days, or it may take a few weeks.

So what happens if the assylum officer determines that the asylum is probably warranted?
If the asylum officer returns a positive determination, the asylum seeker is allowed to start formal removal proceedings with an immigration judge in the immigration court. The process of applying for asylum with an immigration judge is much longer. If the asylum seeker remains detained, the process will normally last between 4-8 months.

So far the asylum seeker has waited (in a detention facility) 2 weeks to two months to have an interview. Then they have waited (in the detention facility) a few days, to a few weeks for an outcome from their interview. Then they have waited (in the detention facility) 4-8 months for a judge to make a determination.

If the judge gives them a positive result
If the asylum seeker is in detention, he or she will be released. If the asylum seeker wins asylum, he or she may apply for lawful permanent residency approximately one year later, and may ultimately apply for citizenship through the naturalization process five years after that.

Asylum seekers going through the correct process typically are detained for the whole time
Asylum seekers without prior deportations who arrive at a port of entry. Asylum seekers who have never received prior deportation orders who request asylum at a port of entry are considered to be "arriving aliens" who are subject to "mandatory detention." CBP, ICE, and the immigration judges all consider this group of asylum seekers to be ineligible for release on bond at any time during their legal proceedings.

Except when...
The only exception recognized by these government agencies is that CBP or ICE may, in their discretion, decide to release certain asylum seekers on "parole." For example, when families arrive at the borders, CBP still frequently releases young children and their mothers on parole before they even have their credible fear interviews.

However
However, for those who are detained for credible fear interviews, it is very rare for ICE to grant requests for release on parole, even after asylum seekers pass their credible fear interviews.

But if it's taking way too long
There are, however, valid legal arguments that depriving this category of asylum seekers from receiving bond hearings after being detained for 180 days is unconstitutional. In order to assert these rights, however, asylum seekers must file petitions for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.

So if they are out on "parole" or out on habeas corpus then they are in the country legally, but need to turn up for their court case when it finally eventuates.

It is one hell of a process. Asylum seekers coming into a Port of Entry have committed no crimes and done nothing illegal, and yet they are detained for several months. If it takes too long or if they otherwise qualify for parole, they might be allowed out of detention and into the country. But at no point are these people illegal.
Unless they have entered at a place other than a Port of Entry or if they overstay and do not turn up to court or if they lose in court and stay in the country.

Ok...last time...since you at least attempted to look it up.

Illegal Migrants Who Apply for Asylum Are Still Here Illegally

One of the tropes making its way through the media is that aliens who have entered the United States illegally and who have been placed into removal proceedings are in some sort of “legal” status. Like many media factualizations associated with immigration, it’s a myth. Nonetheless, I will parse...

cis.org

I was right about everything.

 

[stevil]

I was saying this the entire time.

No you weren't

Again, read the wording...it's a crime to cross the border anywhere but a port of entry.

No one was ever disputing this

Which is why I emphatically repeated it's about people illegally crossing the border.

No, you were claiming that all asylum seekers were illegally crossing the border. But this is not true. Those coming in at the ports of entry were not doing anything illegal.

Well they're still here illegally....they simply cannot be deported until their asylum hearing happens.

No, they are not in USA illegally. They are there legally and are going through the official process in a legal fashion to gain entry.

Which becomes a problem when you watch the video again and you see the expert agreeing the vast majority have no valid claims.

If that is determined then they should be denied at the point of the credible fear interview

I was right about everything.

LOL, you never listen and you never learn a thing. No matter how many times people point out your problem in comprehending things. You always just assume you are right, even when shown emphatically that you are wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No you weren't

I was.

No one was ever disputing this

You were.

No, you were claiming that all asylum seekers were illegally crossing the border.

Quote me where I claimed that.

No, they are not in USA illegally.

Read the article I linked.

If that is determined then they should be denied at the point of the credible fear interview

From what I've read a "credible fear interview" is literally just asking the illegal if they're afraid to return home. If they answer yes, they have passed the interview.

That's an extremely low bar.

LOL, you never listen and you never learn a thing. No matter how many times people point out your problem in comprehending things. You always just assume you are right, even when shown emphatically that you are wrong.

@stevil there's absolutely nothing you've stated that was relevant to any point I've made.

The fact that our asylum system is clogged isn't because of people "legally crossing at ports and requesting asylum"...those are limited in number every day. The problem is the millions who crossed illegally and applied for asylum...and despite your total lack of knowledge on the topic, they are here illegally.

 

[stevil]

Quote me where I claimed that.

Sure

Nope. Everyone in the US is either here legally or illegally. Until an asylum seekers is granted asylum...they're here illegally.

Of course they do...they arrest them for crossing illegally lol.

Read the article I linked.

That was an opinion piece and it was garbage.

From what I've read a "credible fear interview" is literally just asking the illegal if they're afraid to return home. If they answer yes, they have passed the interview.

Nope, you've either read garbage, or you've misunderstood what you read.
If you read the official Arizona documentation that I linked to, it takes them 2 weeks to 2 months to wait in line to get this interview, and then it can take days to weeks for the assessment to come back.
This isn't a simple one question, yes, no answer. Just utter nonsense.
This is just a case of hyper partisan right wingers trying very hard to say that USA has open borders. Just right wing baseless propaganda.
Time to watch real news, don't stick exclusively to right wing opinion shows.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure

I thought it was rather obvious I was talking about the ones here illegally lol.

This is back when you thought "asylum seeker" was a legal status, remember?

That was an opinion piece and it was garbage.

No...them's the facts. You haven't found anything showing that people here illegally claiming asylum suddenly become legal.

Nope, you've either read garbage, or you've misunderstood what you read.

No...you've failed to find anything that backs up the idea that asylum seekers who cross illegally are suddenly legal.

It's the "hyper partisan rhetoric" on the left that spreads that kind of misinformation.

You should get some new news sources.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure





That was an opinion piece and it was garbage.



Nope, you've either read garbage, or you've misunderstood what you read.
If you read the official Arizona documentation that I linked to, it takes them 2 weeks to 2 months to wait in line to get this interview, and then it can take days to weeks for the assessment to come back.
This isn't a simple one question, yes, no answer. Just utter nonsense.
This is just a case of hyper partisan right wingers trying very hard to say that USA has open borders. Just right wing baseless propaganda.
Time to watch real news, don't stick exclusively to right wing opinion shows.

Btw...from that "opinion piece"...

Every alien who has entered the United States illegally is removable from the United States, at least until the moment that the alien is granted some sort of status here. To understand that point requires some background on the removal process.

And more importantly...

Simply filing an application for asylum in removal proceedings does not convert an alien’s status or make the alien “legally” present. That said, DHS cannot remove an alien with a pending asylum application.​

Now, who wrote this opinion piece? Luckily, you can click on his name to see if he's just some right wing political mouthpiece or an expert...

Andrew “Art” Arthur serves as Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC-based research institute that examines the impact of immigration on American society.
He began his legal career through the Attorney General’s Honors Program as a clerk to Administrative Law Judge Joseph E. McGuire in the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer at the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. After a two-year clerkship with Judge McGuire, he received a second Honors Program appointment as a Trial Attorney in the San Francisco District Counsel’s Office, and later the Baltimore District Counsel’s Office, of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
In 1999, he was promoted to the INS’s General Counsel’s Office in Washington DC, first as an Associate General Counsel, and later as an Assistant General Counsel and Acting Chief of the INS National Security Law Division. In the General Counsel’s Office, Mr. Arthur supervised attorneys handling cases involving espionage, terrorism, and persecutors. He also advised the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and INS Commissioner on issues relating to national security.​

See this is the problem when you listen to hyper-partisan left wing political garbage and just assume it's the truth. You end up repeating that misinformation and out of confirmation bias (or perhaps outright embarrassment) you dismiss the actual experts who know what they're actually talking about.

To conclude, the asylum seekers illegally crossing the border are illegal until they've been granted asylum. Given that court dates in places like NYC can take nearly a decade...that's a problem.

Now, I don't know why you, or anyone else wouldn't accept someone who is a literal expert on the matter...but apparently that's the issue. It's not hyper-partisan right wing rhetoric you're arguing against, it's the facts stated by an expert on the issue.

 

[stevil]

Btw...from that "opinion piece"...

Every alien who has entered the United States illegally is removable from the United States, at least until the moment that the alien is granted some sort of status here. To understand that point requires some background on the removal process.

And more importantly...

Simply filing an application for asylum in removal proceedings does not convert an alien’s status or make the alien “legally” present. That said, DHS cannot remove an alien with a pending asylum application.​

I really do hate the USA vernacular. Calling people aliens as if they are from outer space and USA is the entire world. It is dripping with USA arrogance.

Anyway,
If you only want to focus on the subset of asylum seekers who crossed the border at a place other than a port of entry. Yes those people have committed a crime of entering at a place other than a port of entry, and they can be charged for that crime, but at the descression of the authorities. (it isn't mandatory to charge them).

But once people in that subset have filed for asylum, they are then in the system, they are generally detained (unless the authorities have decided to arrest them for illegal entry), and put in a detention Centre. If they are allowed into the general populus on "parole" or habeas corpus then they are legally in the country. That doesn't mean they have legal status, but it does mean that they aren't breaking any laws by being in the country. They are in the system and are being processed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I really do hate the USA vernacular. Calling people aliens as if they are from outer space and USA is the entire world. It is dripping with USA arrogance.

I don't really care.

Anyway,
If you only want to focus on the subset of asylum seekers who crossed the border at a place other than a port of entry.

Not only was I talking about them the entire time...you're the only one trying to include those crossing legally at the port into the discussion.

But once people in that subset have filed for asylum, they are then in the system, they are generally detained (unless the authorities have decided to arrest them for illegal entry), and put in a detention Centre.

Like most of what you've said, this isn't true for the majority of the 6 million people apprehended illegally crossing the border.

The very idea that we created enough detention space for millions of people that fast is both hilarious and ridiculous.

If they are allowed into the general populus on "parole" or habeas corpus then they are legally in the country.

No, they aren't. They are "illegally" in the country.

You aren't going to produce an expert saying otherwise because it isn't true...and I'm not going to listen to you over an expert. Just a couple of days ago, you didn't even know people crossing the border illegally could apply for asylum. Why would anyone take your clearly partisan non-evidenced opinion over that of an expert with decades of experience?

 

[stevil]

No, they aren't. They are "illegally" in the country.

You aren't going to produce an expert saying otherwise because it isn't true...and I'm not going to listen to you over an expert. Just a couple of days ago, you didn't even know people crossing the border illegally could apply for asylum. Why would anyone take your clearly partisan non-evidenced opinion over that of an expert with decades of experience?

Says the person that thinks people that are allowed in the country by the authorities, by court decree etc, that they are illegally in the country.
Two contradictory things, but held as true at the same time in your mind. That's quite a fantastic feat.

Asylum seeker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A person becomes an asylum seeker by making a formal application for the right to remain in another country and keeps that status until the application has been concluded. The relevant immigration authorities of the country of asylum determine whether the asylum seeker will be granted protection and become an officially recognized refugee or whether asylum will be refused and the asylum seeker becomes an illegal immigrant who may be asked to leave the country and may even be deported.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Says the person that thinks people that are allowed in the country by the authorities, by court decree etc, that they are illegally in the country.

Illegal and deportable aren't the same thing.

I can quote back several posts where I pointed out that they are illegal but not yet deportable.

Asylum seeker - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A person becomes an asylum seeker by making a formal application for the right to remain in another country and keeps that status until the application has been concluded.

"Asylum seeker" is like "visa seeker".

You can be here illegally applying for a visa or visa renewal or you can be here legally applying for a visa or visa renewal.

Asylum is no different. Applying doesn't give anyone legal status.

The relevant immigration authorities of the country of asylum determine whether the asylum seeker will be granted protection and become an officially recognized refugee or whether asylum will be refused and the asylum seeker becomes an illegal immigrant who may be asked to leave the country and may even be deported.

You're quoting a Wikipedia article about the term "asylum seeker" that isn't specific to any nation.

I'm quoting an expert on US immigration law lol.

Anything else?

 

[stevil]

Illegal and deportable aren't the same thing.

I can quote back several posts where I pointed out that they are illegal but not yet deportable.

Well, anyway. They are not illegal when they are going through the proper legal process.

For those that crossed illegally but then connected with the authorities and made an asylum application, they illegally crossed the border, they committed a crime, but since they have applied for asylum, they are no longer illegally in the country.

illegal immigrants are people that have either crossed the border illegally and not applied for asylum, or people that have overstayed their visa or people who have had their asylum application rejected.