Anonymous OP 19w

Yeah that’s how asylum works

1

Anonymous #3 19w

As long as you’re on American soil and claim asylum, the gov can’t touch you. If you’re technically not on US soil, that process doesn’t apply

1

Anonymous #3 19w

How do they get to Gary Indiana legally to apply for asylum? ICE would say they’re illegal

8

Anonymous #3 19w

so like how do they legally Get to US soil. you think we’re just handing out visas like candy to the kinds of countries you seek asylum FROM?

1

Anonymous #2 19w

Doesn’t matter. The law says as long as you get onto US soil and meet asylum requirements, you can be granted asylum and the government can’t touch you.

1

Anonymous OP 19w

Refer to my response to 3. Basically, it doesn’t matter if they get here legally or illegally. As long as they can claim asylum the government can’t deport them

1

Anonymous #3 19w

With this administration do you really think they aren’t doing everything in their power to get rid of asylum seekers?

1

Anonymous #2 19w

Your question was regarding whether asylum law requires seekers to get here legally to claim asylum, which I answered. The behavior of the current administration is a separate matter.

1

Anonymous #3 19w

It’s a different matter, but not separate when it inhibits the ability for people to seek asylum. Like the limit on the number of people granted on asylum is a reasonable requirement. The rest tho, idk

1

Anonymous #2 19w

From what I’ve read that’s what the Supreme Court decided on. They sided with the administration that yes, the government has the authority to limit the number of people who apply for asylum each day. This gives immigration enforcement the power to turn away asylum seekers at the border if daily quotas have been met.

1

Anonymous #2 19w

Note that federal law requires migrants who arrive in the US to be given the chance to apply for asylum. Thus the question now becomes can the government restrict asylum for people BEFORE they enter the country. Technically, it can.

1

Anonymous #3 19w

Ok maybe I’m misunderstanding things but like, why couldn’t there be a holding center for asylum seekers? Like a place that’s guarded so nobody illegally enters, and where they can stay without fear of persecution until they are deemed viable to enter or a national threat? Furthermore, how does this ruling then mean that he’s able to cancel asylum for people already here? Bc that seems to be part of it

1

Anonymous #2 19w

Regarding your first question, I don’t know. My guess is that would cost money and, since the migrants aren’t on US soil, it’s not the governments problem. Easier to turn them away and say “Come back tomorrow when the quota resets”.

1

Anonymous #2 19w

Regarding your second question, the courts decision removes TPS (Temp Protected Status) from Haitian and Syrian migrants. The SC ruled that the law in question restricts courts from ruling on decisions made by Homeland Sec. regarding TPS. Thus, since Homeland Sec. decided Haiti and Syria don’t need TPS requirements, migrants from those countries can’t claim that status.

1

Anonymous #3 19w

However, TPS is different from asylum. Thus, while migrants might not be protected by TPS, they can still apply for asylum and get protection that way. And, since they’re already here, the government has to consider them.

1