Canonical Penalties For Border Patrol Agents

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cordelil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EnglishTeacher said:
This must be avoided if at all possible. However, this actually wouldn’t happen at all if they applied for asylum rather than illegally crossing the border–i.e., applying at one of the ports of entry into the U.S. I am sure many do not realize that, however; so we ought to revise our laws and policies so that we can process them faster if they do just enter by crossing the border.
Click to expand...
Am I correct in saying that you can walk up to the border in, say, Ciudad Juarez, and request asylum? Legitimate question and not baiting - I know it seems like that, but I promise it’s not.

To make it seem less so, I’m not for amending laws to make it easier for others who don’t understand them. If you can walk up to the border, present to a guard, and request asylum, then trekking all the way to, say, San Antonio shouldn’t be necessary - getting there and then requesting asylum just seems like someone is trying to game the system. If you can declare at the border (as you can in South Korea - you can literally walk up to immigration in the airport and declare defection and seek asylum), then they should declare at the border.
 
Last edited:
The other side to this issue as that many illegal immigrants are endangering their children because they know that bringing a child will speed up their case. Or worse, some bring children that our not their own, for the same reason:
Needless to say, children should not be making this journey that is fraught with peril. But there is now a premium on bringing children because of how we have handled these cases. They are considered chits.

In April, the New York Times reported:
Some migrants have admitted they brought their children not only to remove them from danger in such places as Central America and Africa, but because they believed it would cause the authorities to release them from custody sooner.
Others have admitted to posing falsely with children who are not their own, and Border Patrol officials say that such instances of fraud are increasing.
According to azcentral.com, it is “common to have parents entrust their children to a smuggler as a favor or for profit.”
Click to expand...
(from the link I posted earlier in this thread)
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
Am I correct in saying that you can walk up to the border in, say, Ciudad Juarez, and request asylum?
Click to expand...
I believe you can, although this likely is not the best way to do it. You can also get a visa such as a tourist visa to come to the U.S. and apply for asylum once you are here. There are other ways, too; and admittedly I am not overly familiar with them. I do think we should revise our laws to make the process easier for people who legitimately need asylum, quite possibly including those who enter illegally.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with making it easier. If you can walk up to the border and declare asylum, then why trek inland thousands of miles, and then say, oh, yeah, asylum please?

Make it easier for those who do it legally. We shouldn’t give in to those who don’t. Sorry, but I will always feel that way.
 
You may be right. The question of how best to deal with those who legitimately need asylum is a difficult one, and I may be wading into waters over my head with that issue. My original reason for posting was that I disagree with the assumption that the temporary, short-term separation of children of parents who cross illegally is necessarily immoral. And by extension, I disagree that there should be canonical penalties for Border Patrol agents for enforcing the current laws.
 
Last edited:
Pup7 said:
Am I correct in saying that you can walk up to the border in, say, Ciudad Juarez, and request asylum? Legitimate question and not baiting - I know it seems like that, but I promise it’s not.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can do that at an entry point. Although if you’re not mexican, this kind of concedes that the US wasn’t the first foreign country you made it to, which is where you’re supposed to be requesting asylum . . .

In fact, this is the “correct” way to request it. Application can be made within the US within one year of first arrival. After that, a “defensive asylum request” may be made in removal proceedings, but has stronger presumptions against it.

Also, a strong majority, even a “most”, of asylum requests are for things that do not render one eligible for asylum. A “credible fear” interview is done in short order, but the system is so far out of whack that a positive finding is issued in these even when clearly not eligible for asylum. I had it in a case where the person was afraid of gang violence. As we went through sponsorship by marriage, the attorney taking over asked why, and I explained, and got the eyeball and nod. Economic hardship is also not grounds for asylum. (whether or not these should is another matter. Also, there are rare cases where the government’s inability to control its own territory rises to the level of governmental “action” against the person–there was a case where a gay frenchman cited danger from gangs of skinheads, and gay and Iranian is pretty much an automatic asylum).

A few odds and ends that have come up . . .

–when the parent is facing criminal charges, it would be downright abnormal to bring the children along for the criminal proceeding. Generally, they aren’t permitted. And bringing the child through booking, etc. would be kind of dramatic.

–the family camps we had in the past aren’t nearly the size that would be needed now.

–there are significant numbers of “families” coming across that are simply frauds. There is a market in northern Mexico to get “children” to be treated as a family (I have no idea on the percentage, and will leave that to those making up numbers at both ends of the spectrum. However, it isn’t rare, and it isn’t the majority).

–simply releasing everyone who claims to be a child would be problematic, given the ages of criminals that have managed to pass as children (again, no guesses as to numbers here).

–edit: and there are only a limited number of those ankle bracelets. They certainly cost less than what families are paid to tend to children, though. I have no idea what the cost or lead-time would be to order them in quantity.

hawk
 
Last edited:
It’s a legal right. It’s federal law.

The way it’s supposed to work, they come here and fill out an I-589, detailing why they are fleeing and making their case for asylum. Then they get on a waiting list for an interview. The process can take up to 5 years. So the asylees are being detained. So the ACLU found a model case and is suing. Rightfully. I say godspeed to them.

But children are getting snatched from families who haven’t broken the law. And alarmingly few people here are condemning it. I take comfort in knowing that my Church is.
 
I understand that. I’m just stating that an asylee who did not request asylum at a port of entry, but came in in another manner, did break the law.

hawk
 
Cases? It’s the overwhelming majority in normal times.

Given the coverage, and statements by caravans that they would be breaking up to have better chances of getting across, I would be shocked if that’s not the case with the current flood.

Also, the overwhelming majority, if not practically all, of this group are clearly and indisputably not eligible for asylum under the law.

The US (and I think everyone else) only grands asylum for protection from the state. Economic refugees, and those fleeing gangs, are simply not eligible for asylum; that’s just not what asylum is.

hawk
 
OK, so I’m doing some digging. You’re an attorney, right? I’d love to know where you found your information because I’m finding almost the opposite.

According to the link I just posted:
Under federal law, anyone from another country can seek asylum — and therefore entry into the U.S. — by claiming to have fled their countries out of fear of persecution over their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Immigrants are eligible to apply for asylum for up to one year after their entry into the U.S., and can apply whether they entered the country legally or illegally. Immigrants who have been in the country longer than one year can also apply for asylum status if they meet certain criteria, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. More recently, asylum seekers have also been granted status due to their gender and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
In fact, the feds are actually being sued for lying to the asylum seekers:
Those misleading and unlawful practices are said to include CBP officials falsely telling arriving asylum-seekers that asylum is not available at that particular POE, and that they would need to try elsewhere; that they cannot apply for asylum because there is not enough space at the location; that they first need to check in with Mexican authorities before applying in the U.S.; or that the U.S. government has simply stopped granting asylum altogether. The suit also describes CBP officials using “threats and intimidation” to deter individuals from exercising their right to apply for asylum, including “threatening to separate parents from their children” and forcing asylum-seekers who have made it into a port of entry “to recant their fears or otherwise to withdraw their applications for admission to the U.S.”
Click to expand...
These allegations sound awfully sleazy and corrupt. 😦
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
OK, so I’m doing some digging. You’re an attorney, right? I’d love to know where you found your information because I’m finding almost the opposite.
Click to expand...
Practicing immigration law in immigration court, including asylum, professional networking and organizations, high level CLE (continuing ed)
blackforest said:
— and therefore entry into the U.S. — by claiming to have fled their countries out of fear of persecution over their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
Click to expand...
But it needs to be governmental persecution for this, not private persecution. And most (not all) of the current backpack are economic refugees with no serious claim of persecution. (that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be helped; just that asylum isn’t the answer for these.)
blackforest said:
Immigrants are eligible to apply for asylum for up to one year after their entry into the U.S., and can apply whether they entered the country legally or illegally.
Click to expand...
Yes, the application can be made for up to a year–but does not change the fact of illegal entry. In practice, if granted, it kind of absolves the illegal entry. I’ve never heard of a criminal prosecution for a first illegal entry (but that’s a governmental resources issue).
blackforest said:
More recently, asylum seekers have also been granted status due to their gender and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
I mentioned that one. I haven’t been in the loop for a while, but we won’t send a gay back to Iran, and there’s that case of the French gay who claimed danger of skinheads (I suspect that finding that to be governmental action by neglect was overreaching by the immigration judge, but I did’t hear the evidence).
blackforest said:
These allegations sound awfully sleazy and corrupt. 😦
Click to expand...
If true, sleazy, corrupt, and possibly criminal neglect/non-performance of duty.

hawk
 
This was a VERY informative post. I learn so much on CAF!
dochawk said:
But it needs to be governmental persecution for this, not private persecution. And most (not all) of the current backpack are economic refugees with no serious claim of persecution. (that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be helped; just that asylum isn’t the answer for these.)
Click to expand...
That’s good to know - thanks for clarifying.

It seems like for the Central American migrants, there would be an extremely fine, if not non-existent, line between governmental and private persecution. If government officials aren’t working with the gangs, they are the gangs. Here’s one example. Symbiosis: Gangs and Municipal Power in Apopa, El Salvador - InSight Crime

From the tone of this current administration, however, I don’t think that anyone intends to acknowledge this.
 
If it can be proven that the government is complicit with the gangs, asylum would apply. It is a reach, but the lack of government activity can become action when the gangs become the de facto government.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top