Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)
37. Unfortunately they probably don't fall under the legal definition of refugees
Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:18 PM
Jul 2014

To have refugee status, you must apply for it before entering the country, at the border for example. If you have already made an entry, even illegally, you must apply for asylum. If you qualify, you can stay indefinitely and even obtain a work permit. Qualifying however is problematic. To qualify as either a refugee at the border or an asylee once you are here, you must establish either a history of past persecution and the likelihood that the persecution would continue if you returned or you must establish a well-founded fear of future persecution if you returned to your home country. The only types of persecution acceptable are for race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Being surrounded by gang violence and drug lords doesn't count. Being an economic refugee, in other words just fleeing a harsh economic environment won't work, as three-fourths of the planet would probably qualify. Even if you show past specific instances AGAINST YOU in particular of racial, ethnic, religious or political persecution, the U.S. immigration authorities are hard to convince. I once represented a young man from Iran in an asylum case. He had been involved since his teens in opposing the religious fundamentalists, demonstrating and distributing tracts. His name was written about in Iranian newspapers as a traitor once he was arrested. He produced copies of those newspapers for the USCIS (at the time called the INS). He was also imprisoned for several years, beaten and tortured with cattle prods and the like. The INS denied his case, questioning the accuracy of his facts. At trial, when he took off his shirt to show the many old scars and burns, the judge granted his asylum. I had another hard fought case about a family of ethnic Chinese from Indonesia who in the 1998 nationwide riots were targeted by rioting Moslems (an estimated 1,000 Chinese killed, dozens and dozens of Chinese women brutally raped). Their house was broken into during the massive series of anti-Chinese demonstrations in Indonesia, their possessions were either stolen or broken and they were forced into the streets where some of their neighbors suffered serious injuries. Even with proof, their asylum case dragged on for quite a while before the USCIS until it was finally approved.

I wish we lived in a world without borders but we don't. Immigrants simply seeking a better life such as schools, medicine, jobs, etc. don't qualify as refugees on the basis of economic factors alone under U.S. law. I wish we could take everyone and live without borders in a unified brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Legally the name the news is using is correct yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #1
We stole this country from the Native Americans, we did it legally too, according to us randys1 Jul 2014 #2
And therefore we should have completely open borders. Throd Jul 2014 #3
No, we should give the land back and leave, or pay reparations beyond what we have randys1 Jul 2014 #4
I agree yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #5
Use our tax system to do it, go ahead and raise taxes randys1 Jul 2014 #8
Fine let's do it yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #13
Great plan! Throd Jul 2014 #9
Glad you agree randys1 Jul 2014 #11
Are you saying the children being discussed should be Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #22
This may come as news to you but -- Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #14
those children stole the land they are fleeing? randys1 Jul 2014 #16
No, but neither did the Americans currently living here who were once children here. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2014 #19
Am I on Discussionist again, shoot, i mess that up sometimes randys1 Jul 2014 #21
If you're going to continue to blame every non-Native American for the crimes of our ancestors NuclearDem Jul 2014 #25
USA owes Native Americans and African Americans, period...has nothing to do with opinion randys1 Jul 2014 #26
Associated press banned the use of the term a year ago. Starry Messenger Jul 2014 #7
Minors are not able to enter into a contract. They are not adults. NYC_SKP Jul 2014 #15
Not necessarily treestar Jul 2014 #28
I agree, TBH. AverageJoe90 Jul 2014 #6
I prefer unauthorized immigrant. aikoaiko Jul 2014 #10
Children in need, no reason to say anything else randys1 Jul 2014 #12
Perhaps you can run for President yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #17
No wonder this country is going into the toilet, so called liberals defending the reason randys1 Jul 2014 #18
Probably confusing form and substance. Igel Jul 2014 #35
I don't think so. aikoaiko Jul 2014 #20
Jesus...i give up randys1 Jul 2014 #23
One doesn't have to hide from the fact that the children didn't immigrant through regular processes aikoaiko Jul 2014 #24
Apparently Chris Hayes heard me thinking. His program, which is on as I write this... Hekate Jul 2014 #27
I'm rather shocked by the responses to your entirely reasonable OP. scarletwoman Jul 2014 #30
Agreed. H2O Man Jul 2014 #31
That all depends on whether there's anyone here who can still tell the difference. scarletwoman Jul 2014 #32
Very good! H2O Man Jul 2014 #29
Perfect! It's appalling how these children who are fleeing csziggy Jul 2014 #33
I also prefer "refugees" or "unaccompanied minors." These children are refugees and Louisiana1976 Jul 2014 #34
If another country's citizens acted like those of Murietta csziggy Jul 2014 #36
Agreed. In any other country they would simply be called refugees. theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #42
Unfortunately they probably don't fall under the legal definition of refugees aint_no_life_nowhere Jul 2014 #37
I heard that the UN made a comment to the US about the "refugees on our border"? Hekate Jul 2014 #38
I'm referring to the legal definition aint_no_life_nowhere Jul 2014 #41
The fact is their countries are in the state they are in largely because of the US alarimer Jul 2014 #39
+1 Hekate Jul 2014 #40
+1000. Agreed completely. And we are culpable for the chaos in their home states riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #43
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can we just call those ki...»Reply #37