Gimme shelter!
As usual, Marty Kelly (aka “Doc Zoom”), writing in Wonkette, has the best breakdown of the latest moves by Donald Trump to persecute and harass Central Americans fleeing a 100 years of US sponsored abuse, climate change, and general mayhem.
The Trump administration is rolling out some truly evil fuckery on immigration today, rewriting how the US considers the cases of people asking for asylum at the southern border. In essence, the new directive will trash the asylum laws as written by Congress so that only people applying for asylum after crossing the border at an official port of entry will be considered. Those crossing outside ports of entry will be far more likely to be subject to immediate deportation. The new rules, expected to go into effect almost immediately, are likely to be challenged in court the moment they’re implemented, since the Executive branch is attempting to override established law. Trump apparently figures his Supreme Court will let him do whatever he wants, and with his new crowd of creeps, he might even be right, who knows?
The administration is essentially trying to upend US law to please all the trolls in internet comments who insist no one can be allowed to claim asylum if they cross the border illegally, even if they immediately turn themselves in to the Border Patrol, because RESPECT FOR THE LAW. In mere reality, the actual language of the Immigration and Nationality Act is quite specific on the matter: it says people can apply for asylum “whether or not” they do so at an official port of entry. They simply need to be on US soil. That’s how Congress wrote the law, but the folks who believe in strict constructionism and wanted Barack Obama impeached for tyrannical executive orders now say Congress clearly fucked up and the administration must eliminate that “or not” part.
mexfiles.net 
Funny…Dianne Feinstein disagrees with that article, or at least she did in 2014.
Here’s some excerpts from a story in The Daily Caller:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California encouraged then-President Barack Obama to use broad presidential powers to tighten immigration rules in response to a wave of migration from Central America in 2014.
In a letter to Obama, Feinstein cited the same statutory authority that President Donald Trump invoked to make illegal border-crossers ineligible for asylum.
That authority comes from Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the president to “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein encouraged then-President Barack Obama to use the “very broad power” granted to him by Congress to limit immigration in any way he saw fit, according to a letter obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
And she’s one of a long line of Democrats who used to make comments and recommendations about immigration law and the enforcement thereof that’s almost the same as what Trump is saying today. Right? Videos of Biden denouncing birthright citizenship have made the rounds recently, as well as videos of Obama saying that people can’t just walk into America without permission.
The fact of the matter is that it’s far easier to apply for asylum at a port of entry than it is to enter illegally. Right? All the ports of entry have highways leading to them, while crossing unguarded places requires a lot of hiking in the often-dangerous wilderness. And if people are truly seeking asylum, with justifiable asylum cases, then why should they enter illegally? And if folks are entering illegally and thus by their very first actions in the USA demonstrating disrespect for U.S. law, why should they be treated the same as those who pursue legal channels? Furthermore, we all know that plenty of people who are economic migrants enter illegally, spend considerable amounts of time in the country, and then only request asylum when caught. That’s not seeking asylum; that’s gaming the system, and Trump is right to put an end to it.
The U.N. recommendations on allowing asylum to illegal entrants is based on the idea that during war time, or civil unrest, folks may have to urgently flee by whatever route necessary. That is not the case with these Hondurans who are marching boldly and openly through Mexico unimpeded by anyone.
Calling it “evil fuckery” to require that asylum seekers go through a well-established procedure is sheer gaslighting.
Saludos,
Kim G
Redding, CA
Where we think kids in U.S. inner-city hellholes ought to be first in line for “asylum.”
As I would expect from US Democratic Party hacks… when it comes to screwing over Latin America, the two US parties have shown remarkable bipartisanship since the McKinley Administration.
As to the treaty, whatever the original impetus (don’t know, I wasn’t consulted), it says what it says. US ports of entry are being purposely blocked (as they were for a few hours here, a sort of kabuki show of force to keep the US administration happy). Economic migrants can make a decent claim government policies in their own countries (fostered by US interests) were a form of discrimination and forced them into exile. At any rate, claims for asylum do have to be heard.
P.S. I fully support the USA being open to genuine asylum-seekers. In my view, that includes folks like political activists in repressive regimes like China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and all such countries. It includes folks like Asia Bibi, the Pakistani woman recently released from prison in Pakistan for the crime of blasphemy and who now faces certain persecution.
But if the standard for granting asylum were simply that you lived in a dangerous neighborhood in a poorly-managed country, we’d have to accept hundreds of millions of folks into the USA, and we’d destroy ourselves in the process.
And yes, I know I won the birth lottery. But that fact doesn’t change any of the above.