« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Wrong again, clo ...

By: micro in BAF | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 13 Jun 18 4:04 AM | 40 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Bash-a-Farter
Msg. 02374 of 06523
(This msg. is a reply to 02369 by Beldin)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

This explanation requires WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY
too much thought for those upon whom you wish to enlighten.
They are not capable of understanding......

Get this down to a kindergarten level sir Beldin and there possibly, maybe, could be some hope it gets through the void....


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Wrong again, clo ...
By: Beldin
in BAF
Tue, 12 Jun 18 10:46 PM
Msg. 02369 of 06523

#msg-1042367

Any domestic abuse in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, or any other country is NOT our government's problem - PERIOD, END OF STORY. That is an issue for their native country to deal with. Any domestic abuse they may have suffered in their home country is NOT a valid reason for requesting asylum in the United States - WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S NANNY. The Barry Soetoro Administration disingenuously expanded this coverage simply to give foreign invaders more excuses for requesting asylum in this country. PUHLEEEEEEEEEEASE! 

AG Jeff Sessions Resets Obama's Asylum Expansion

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/06/11/jeff-sessions-tightens-the-screws-on-bogus-asylum-seekers/

Attorney General Jeff Sessions exercised his authority Monday as the ultimate reviewer of the immigration court system to overrule a series of Obama-era decisions that were allowing the radical expansion of the American asylum system.

Asylum is part of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In 1980, it was defined to allow entry to the United States for people who face persecution, typically by their home countries' governments, for their "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."

Traditionally, the "social group" category was seen as akin to the others, a defined group with identifiable characteristics whose members faced danger and persecution. Asylum was for anti-Communist Afghans who for refused to be drafted into the Soviet occupation's army, Jehovah's Witnesses who faced arrest for holding meetings, and so on.

During the Obama administration, certain decisions in the immigration courts and by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which oversees them began to push the boundaries of the "social group" category. In 2014, after years of court rejecting similar claims, the BIA approved "married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship" as a social group qualifying for asylum. The case Sessions overruled today expanded that protection to "El Salvadoran women who are unable to leave their domestic relationships where they have children in common."

Sessions writes in his 31-page opinion:

I reiterate that an applicant for asylum on account of her membership in a purported particular social group must demonstrate: (1) membership in a particular group, which is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within the society in question; (2) that her membership in that group is a central reason for her persecution; and (3) that the alleged harm is inflicted by the government of her home country or by persons that the government is unwilling or unable to control[.]

Coverage of Sessions's action has focused largely on the specifics of domestic violence victims and women with children, but the ruling has much further reaching implications. In its own terms, it seeks to halt the rapid expansion of the asylum concept to cover victims or even potential victims of regular private criminal activity.

Open borders groups and the immigration bar have for years sought to turn the exception of asylum for persecuted groups into a rule that people more likely to be victims of ordinary crime in their home countries have a right to move to the United States. In 2005, for example, an immigration lawyer unsuccessfully asked a federal appeals court to expand asylum to cover "young, attractive Albanian women," because they were more likely to be forced into prostitution. In 2011, a lawsuit asked a different court to do the same for people who were "resistant" to gangs.

Sessions's opinion Monday, Matter of A-B, likely forecloses, for now, this effort to use existing immigration law to force the United States to admit more and more people who enter the country without authorization and claim asylum based on dangers inherent in the less developed countries from which they come. ...


« BAF Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next