US congresswoman states America should be "more fearful of white men"

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, your ignorance is astonishing

Enlighten me oh wise tea bag?

mad muffin

alastair wrote: »

You cannot seek asylum at a US embassy abroad. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Convention on the status of refugees, which bans penalizing asylum seekers for illegal entry for the purpose of seeking asylum. The US has a legal obligation to consider asylum claims, regardless of how the claimant got into the country.

The USA is not a signatory of the 1951 convention.

TeaBagMania

alastair wrote: »

You cannot seek asylum at a US embassy abroad. QUOTE]

Wrong

cut and paste

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses. Once your application is approved and you enter the U.S., you are authorized to work. Within one year of your entry, you are required to apply for permanent residency status, or a green card. Filing your application as quickly as possible with the American embassy is important because caps or quotas are generally set each year for the number of persons admitted as refugees.

Even if you are not eligible as a refugee under the refugee process, you may still qualify for assistance through other asylum-type programs through the American embassy. For example, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you may not fit the statutory definition of refugee, but you may still qualify for a visa under the Violence Against Women Act.

Overheal

mad muffin wrote: »

The USA is not a signatory of the 1951 convention.

Party to the 1967 protocol though which supersedes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

You cannot seek asylum at a US embassy abroad.

Wrong

cut and paste

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses. Once your application is approved and you enter the U.S., you are authorized to work. Within one year of your entry, you are required to apply for permanent residency status, or a green card. Filing your application as quickly as possible with the American embassy is important because caps or quotas are generally set each year for the number of persons admitted as refugees.

Even if you are not eligible as a refugee under the refugee process, you may still qualify for assistance through other asylum-type programs through the American embassy. For example, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you may not fit the statutory definition of refugee, but you may still qualify for a visa under the Violence Against Women Act.

Funny the same page you plagiarized says right at the top: https://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/asylum/filing_American_embassy.htm

"Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?"

"No. You must be physically present in the United States to apply. The distinction between a refugee and an asylee (asylum applicant) is easy to confuse. Both are considered persons who are subject to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Consequently, both types apply for humanitarian relief with the U.S. government. The main difference in processing, however, is where the individual is located. Refugees are located outside of the U.S and outside of their native country. Asylees are already within the U.S. or a port of entry of the U.S. This distinction is important because it affects how and where you can apply for relief."

And usembassy.gov:

"The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States."

mad muffin

Overheal wrote: »

Party to the 1967 protocol though which supersedes it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees

I didn’t want to be a pedant so… but technically they never signed the 51

Overheal

mad muffin wrote: »

I didn’t want to be a pedant so… but technically they never signed the 51

Indeed. https://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b73b0d63.pdf

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

You cannot seek asylum at a US embassy abroad. QUOTE]

Wrong

cut and paste

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses. Once your application is approved and you enter the U.S., you are authorized to work. Within one year of your entry, you are required to apply for permanent residency status, or a green card. Filing your application as quickly as possible with the American embassy is important because caps or quotas are generally set each year for the number of persons admitted as refugees.

Even if you are not eligible as a refugee under the refugee process, you may still qualify for assistance through other asylum-type programs through the American embassy. For example, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you may not fit the statutory definition of refugee, but you may still qualify for a visa under the Violence Against Women Act.

Nope.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/asylum-at-embassy/

alastair

mad muffin wrote: »

I didn’t want to be a pedant so… but technically they never signed the 51

Signatory to the legal obligations outlined in the 1951 Convention.

TeaBagMania

Overheal wrote: »

Funny the same page you plagiarized says right at the top: https://immigration-law.freeadvice.com/immigration-law/asylum/filing_American_embassy.htm

"Can I Apply for Asylum at an American Embassy?"

"No. You must be physically present in the United States to apply. The distinction between a refugee and an asylee (asylum applicant) is easy to confuse. Both are considered persons who are subject to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Consequently, both types apply for humanitarian relief with the U.S. government. The main difference in processing, however, is where the individual is located. Refugees are located outside of the U.S and outside of their native country. Asylees are already within the U.S. or a port of entry of the U.S. This distinction is important because it affects how and where you can apply for relief."

And usembassy.gov:

"The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States considers asylum only for aliens who are physically present in the United States."

you continue to display your ignorance, that paragraph is for asylum seekers already in the US, why the hell would you visit an embassy in your home country if you're already inside the US?

mad muffin

The Trump administration has announced new immigration rules ending asylum protections for almost all migrants who arrive at the US-Mexico border, in violation of both US and international law.
According to the new rules, any asylum seekers who pass through another country before arriving at the southern border – including children traveling on their own – will not be eligible for asylum if they failed to apply first in their country of transit. They would only be eligible for US asylum if their application was turned down elsewhere.

The US Refugee Act of 1980 limits the right of asylum if the applicant can be sent back to a “safe third country”, but human rights advocates have pointed out that neither Mexico nor any Central American countries come close to meeting the act’s standards of a safe third country, “where the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened”... “and where the alien would have access to a full an fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum”.

Furthermore, for a country to be considered “safe”, it would have to enter into a formal agreement with the US.

Which they have with Guatemala.

And I know… the agreement with Gautemala is a lie blah blah blah.

mad muffin

alastair wrote: »

Signatory to the legal obligations outlined in the 1951 Convention.

You said they were a signatory of the 1951 convention. They did not sign it.

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

you continue to display your ignorance, that paragraph is for asylum seekers already in the US, why the hell would you visit an embassy in your home country if you're already inside the US?

Again, from your own link,

"The distinction between a refugee and an asylee (asylum applicant) is easy to confuse. Both are considered persons who are subject to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Consequently, both types apply for humanitarian relief with the U.S. government. The main difference in processing, however, is where the individual is located. Refugees are located outside of the U.S and outside of their native country. Asylees are already within the U.S. or a port of entry of the U.S. This distinction is important because it affects how and where you can apply for relief."

Your original claim for your reference was:

if someone wants to claim asylum they can do so thru the legal route at the embassy in their country.

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

you continue to display your ignorance, that paragraph is for asylum seekers already in the US, why the hell would you visit an embassy in your home country if you're already inside the US?

One. More. Time.

You. Cannot. Claim. Asylum. At. US. Embassies.

alastair

mad muffin wrote: »

You said they were a signatory of the 1951 convention. They did not sign it.

They are a signatory to the article I referenced from the 1951 convention. It is legally binding on them.

mad muffin

alastair wrote: »

They are a signatory to the article I referenced from the 1951 convention. It is legally binding on them.

They signed the 67 protocol.

alastair

mad muffin wrote: »

Which they have with Guatemala.

Not according to the government of Guatemala.

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuatemalaGob/status/1154935874158809088

"I think it's very important that we clear things up once and for all," said Guatemala Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart, who signed the agreement in the Oval Office. "This is not a 'safe third country' agreement like it's been interpreted. This is an agreement that has different characteristics and special characteristics."

alastair

mad muffin wrote: »

They signed the 67 protocol.

Which incorporates the 1951 article outlined - unchanged.

TeaBagMania

Overheal wrote: »

Again, from your own link,

"The distinction between a refugee and an asylee (asylum applicant) is easy to confuse. Both are considered persons who are subject to persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Consequently, both types apply for humanitarian relief with the U.S. government. The main difference in processing, however, is where the individual is located. Refugees are located outside of the U.S and outside of their native country. Asylees are already within the U.S. or a port of entry of the U.S. This distinction is important because it affects how and where you can apply for relief."

Your original claim for your reference was:

OK so you're getting into semantics now because i didnt type Refugee before asylum seeker

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

OK so you're getting into semantics now because i didnt type Refugee before asylum seeker

The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States.

https://it.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/rome/sections-offices/dhs/uscis/refugeesasylum/

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

OK so you're getting into semantics now because i didnt type Refugee before asylum seeker

Well we are talking about the southern border, and militarizing it. And its asylum-seekers at the border, not refugees. So why would I have assumed you meant to imply refugees? :rolleyes:

TeaBagMania

alastair wrote: »

The United States does not grant asylum in its diplomatic premises abroad. Under U.S. law, the United States grants asylum only to aliens who are physically present in the United States.

Refugees: Asylum for Those Located Outside the U.S.
If you are a refugee, you may contact the American embassy for assistance in submitting an application for resettlement to the United States. They will assist you in completing your application and gathering your supporting documentation. They can also help arrange loans to pay for any relocation expenses. Once your application is approved and you enter the U.S., you are authorized to work. Within one year of your entry, you are required to apply for permanent residency status, or a green card. Filing your application as quickly as possible with the American embassy is important because caps or quotas are generally set each year for the number of persons admitted as refugees.

Sounds like the road to asylum to me

TeaBagMania

Overheal wrote: »

Well we are talking about the southern border, and militarizing it. And its asylum-seekers at the border, not refugees. So why would I have assumed you meant to imply refugees? :rolleyes:

well as you've discovered, if their not refugees than their SOL

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

well as you've discovered, if their not refugees than their SOL

Immigration courts determine that.

So no, it is not sensible to militarize the border.

TeaBagMania

Overheal wrote: »

So no, it is not sensible to militarize the border.

Yes, it is

mad muffin

alastair wrote: »

Which incorporates the 1951 article outlined - unchanged.

But you said they signed the 51. Which they never did. They signed the 67.

steddyeddy

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wasting? how is it wasting when there are hundreds of miles of open land people can just walk across?
a menacing wall manned with the military is enough of a deterrent to stop people from crossing, well at least those that aren't mentally deranged

How many people walk across it?

Overheal

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Yes, it is

Why?

Dog Man Star

Far from the OP's outrage, with the latest mass shooting, the white nationalists are definitely the most dangerous terrorist group in the US. Boy, has this thread backfired.

When a 6 year old boy gets shot dead attending a fcuking garlic festival by a white nationalist teenage cretin, that is worse than any Islamic terrorist has ever inflicted on the US. FACT FACT FACT!!!!!

You're thinking 9/11 right?, when Trump overrode Congress THIS WEEK, to sell weapons to the Saudis, who were totally responsible for the attacks on September 11th, 2001.

OP owes elected Congresswoman Illhan Omar an apology for her "bizarre" statement.

Will OP apologise? Of course not, another spineless, lying twat.

mad muffin

Dog Man Star wrote: »

Far from the OP's outrage, with the latest mass shooting, the white nationalists are definitely the most dangerous terrorist group in the US. Boy, has this thread backfired.

When a 6 year old boy gets shot dead attending a fcuking garlic festival by a white nationalist teenage cretin, that is worse than any Islamic terrorist has ever inflicted on the US. FACT FACT FACT!!!!!

You're thinking 9/11 right?, when Trump overrode Congress THIS WEEK, to sell weapons to the Saudis, who were totally responsible for the attacks on September 11th, 2001.

OP owes elected Congresswoman Illhan Omar an apology for her "bizarre" statement.

Will OP apologise? Of course not, another spineless, lying twat.

im curious. What do,you make of this.

https://youtu.be/6jeaWuqW28U

Or this
Two mothers shot in Chicago yesterday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/07/30/that-couldve-been-any-us-two-mothers-who-fought-gun-violence-years-were-shot-killed/?utm_term=.9b83b31e54d8