Caitsith.Shiroi said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
They are claiming their right to due process is being infringed upon by the US President saying they will need to apply for asylum at lawful ports of entry.
Thing is, they don't have any right to due process just like you have no right to due process. A person must be within US jurisdiction to have Constitutional rights. The US Constitution extends to the border of the USA not beyond, it doesn't apply in Mexico, doesn't apply in Canada and doesn't apply in the UK or China. Congress has long since placed the power of immigration policy in the hands of the US President.
Thing is, they don't have any right to due process just like you have no right to due process. A person must be within US jurisdiction to have Constitutional rights. The US Constitution extends to the border of the USA not beyond, it doesn't apply in Mexico, doesn't apply in Canada and doesn't apply in the UK or China. Congress has long since placed the power of immigration policy in the hands of the US President.
Meaning the moment they put a foot in the united states they have the right to due process, even if they didn't enter by a "lawful port of entry"?
That depends, seriously it does. Due process exists the moment they are in the USA but it's all about jurisdiction. For criminal matters they certainly have it, in the case of immigration they have the right to have their case reviewed in accordance with the laws and policies set forth by DHS and UCIS. If one of those policies is "failure to apply for asylum at a lawful port of entry within a reasonable time constitutes denial of applicant" then they are still subject to it.
The democrats don't like that the President has control over immigration and are looking for ways to sidestep that control. It's no different then all their other tactics of trying to run the government without being elected to run it.
You will side with them because your of the same religion.
