Dan refutes Ben

[Danzo]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I like them a lot.  I think they are a vital component of both the criminal justice and civil law aspects of our judicial system.

That said, I don't think they should be used to excuse deliberate subversion of the law, nor should they be used to create perverse incentives to violate the law.  The system of "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years (until you're past the applicable SOL), then you're home free!" is unsustainable.  It creates a massive incentive to break the law.  

You like them, but you don't like when they are used?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

There are only two countries that border the United States.  So respectfully, I reject the notion that folks outside of the citizens of Canada and Mexico "get the choice of death or cross the border illegally."

There are people from countries other than Mexico or Canada who enter the U.S. through Mexico or Canada.

I know.  That was my point.  They had more options than "death or cross the border illegally."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The crisis at the southern border, involving millions of unvetted persons with who-knows-what kinds of backgrounds, motives, etc. illegally crossing it and spreading throughout the United States, was an entirely manufactured one:

 

I wonder where all of these people got the idea that the border was open, so they could flood in?  It certainly wasn't from the previous administration, which from day one repeatedly said "don't come here/over."  It wasn't from the previous administration's border policies, which resulted in record numbers of expulsions, border apprehensions, and criminal arrests.  

It's almost as if certain people lying repeatedly about the border being open influences global perceptions about the border.  Dishonesty will always be a more effective communication tool than the truth, which is why it's such a popular tool of the unethical.

There was definitely a crisis.  It was real, and it was partially caused by the very people who use it as a tool to further their own power consolidation.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I know.  That was my point.  They had more options than "death or cross the border illegally."

Well, whether they "had more options" is not knowable. Whether they had reason to believe they had more options is more important. This is one of places where the concept of mercy could have some influence, just in case you were wondering.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Quote

I like them a lot.  I think they are a vital component of both the criminal justice and civil law aspects of our judicial system.

That said, I don't think they should be used to excuse deliberate subversion of the law, nor should they be used to create perverse incentives to violate the law.  The system of "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years (until you're past the applicable SOL), then you're home free!" is unsustainable.  It creates a massive incentive to break the law.  

You like them, but you don't like when they are used?

I don't like when they are misused.

An example: Jack is sued for battery he supposedly committed at a bar he frequented.  The event happened 7 years ago.  Jack is likely not able to reconstruct his schedule going that far back.  He is also likely to encounter problems in compiling evidence, gathering witness statements, etc.  Consequently, the statute of limitations would be an appropriate time limitation against such a legal claim.

Another example: Jack deliberately and illegally crosses the border, then stays under the radar for X amount of years, and then applies for citizenship because - under your rubric - the SOL bars any penalty for his deliberate violation of the law.  In this context, the SOL is used to subvert justice, not advance it.  So I would oppose this rubric.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Doctor Steuss]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't like when they are misused.

An example: Jack is sued for battery he supposedly committed at a bar he frequented.  The event happened 7 years ago.  Jack is likely not able to reconstruct his schedule going that far back.  He is also likely to encounter problems in compiling evidence, gathering witness statements, etc.  Consequently, the statute of limitations would be an appropriate time limitation against such a legal claim.

Another example: Jack deliberately and illegally crosses the border, then stays under the radar for X amount of years, and then applies for citizenship because - under your rubric - the SOL bars any penalty for his deliberate violation of the law.  In this context, the SOL is used to subvert justice, not advance it.  So I would oppose this rubric.

Thanks,

-Smac

Unrelated (by maybe related); but, this seems like a good opportunity to tag expert knowledge and correct my possible ignorance.  My understanding is that SOL applies to the time that evidence of the crime is discovered, and not when the crime itself was committed.  Am I off in that understanding?

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

I know.  That was my point.  They had more options than "death or cross the border illegally."

Well, whether they "had more options" is not knowable. Whether they had reason to believe they had more options is more important. This is one of places where the concept of mercy could have some influence, just in case you were wondering.

We have refugee applications for these purposes.

I am genuinely curious as to how many of the millions who are unlawfully present in the U.S. were fleeing "death," whose choices were "death" or illegally entering into, or staying in, the United States.  As opposed to, say, women and children who are trafficked into the U.S., those who see more/better economic opportunity (I think huge numbers fit into this category), those who come for nefarious reasons, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Unrelated (by maybe related); but, this seems like a good opportunity to tag expert knowledge and correct my possible ignorance.  My understanding is that SOL applies to the time that evidence of the crime is discovered, and not when the crime itself was committed.  Am I off in that understanding?

From ChatGPT (if there are inaccuracies, I hope Danzo will chime in) :

Quote

How does the statute of limitations operate in the context of someone illegally entering into the United States?

 

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

How the Statute of Limitations Applies to Illegal Entry into the U.S.

The statute of limitations refers to the legal time limit within which the government can prosecute someone for a criminal offense. In the context of illegal entry into the United States, the statute of limitations primarily applies to criminal charges, but it does not affect deportation (removal) proceedings, which are civil in nature and can be initiated at any time.

---

1. Criminal Penalties for Illegal Entry

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325, improper entry into the U.S. is a misdemeanor offense that includes:

• Entering the U.S. without inspection (e.g., crossing the border unlawfully).
• Using fraudulent documents or misrepresentation to gain entry.
• Evading an immigration checkpoint.

Statute of Limitations for Illegal Entry

• The statute of limitations for the first offense of illegal entry (misdemeanor) is 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3282.
• If the offense involves aggravated factors (e.g., reentry after deportation), it may be classified as a felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which also has a 5-year statute of limitations.

✅ Implication: If more than five years have passed since a person illegally entered the U.S., they cannot be criminally prosecuted for that act.

---

2. Illegal Reentry After Deportation

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, illegal reentry into the U.S. after being deported, removed, or denied admission is a felony offense and carries the following penalties:

• Up to 2 years in prison for a basic reentry offense.
• Up to 20 years in prison if the individual has prior serious criminal convictions.

Statute of Limitations for Illegal Reentry

• 5 years from the date of illegal reentry (18 U.S.C. § 3282).
• If the individual continues to be unlawfully present, the "continuing offense" doctrine may apply, meaning prosecution could still be possible if a new unlawful act (e.g., false statements to immigration authorities) occurs within 5 years.

---

3. Civil Deportation Proceedings (No Time Limit)

• Unlike criminal prosecution, deportation (removal) proceedings are civil, meaning there is no statute of limitations.
• The U.S. government can initiate deportation against an individual at any time, regardless of how long they have been in the country.
• Even if a person entered illegally decades ago, they can still be placed in removal proceedings unless they qualify for relief (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, or cancellation of removal).

✅ Implication: The government can deport someone at any time, even if they entered illegally many years ago.

---

4. Potential Relief from Removal

If someone has been in the U.S. for a long time, they may qualify for certain forms of relief from deportation, such as:

1. Asylum (if they fear persecution).
2. Cancellation of Removal (for individuals who have lived in the U.S. for at least 10 years and meet hardship criteria).
3. Adjustment of Status (e.g., through marriage to a U.S. citizen).

---

Conclusion

• The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution of illegal entry or reentry is 5 years.
• However, deportation (removal) has no statute of limitations, meaning someone who entered illegally at any time can still be subject to removal proceedings.
• Individuals with long-term unlawful presence may have defenses or relief options but remain at risk of deportation if discovered by immigration authorities.

Again, Danzo can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he is citing the SOL concept relative to civil deportation proceedings.  From the above:

• Unlike criminal prosecution, deportation (removal) proceedings are civil, meaning there is no statute of limitations.
• The U.S. government can initiate deportation against an individual at any time, regardless of how long they have been in the country.
• Even if a person entered illegally decades ago, they can still be placed in removal proceedings unless they qualify for relief (e.g., asylum, adjustment of status, or cancellation of removal).

If I understand Danzo's position, he seems to be advancing the proposition that people who illegally enter the U.S., or otherwise come to be "unlawfully present" in the U.S. (such as by overstaying a visa), should be able to stay in the U.S., apparently in perpetuity, if they can get away with it for a long enough amount of time (beyond a theoretical statute of limitations).

I have previously responded to this sentiment as follows:

Quote

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

And here:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

And here:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

I also asked ChatGPT this: "Tell me more about the 'Cancellation of Removal' criteria."

The response:

Quote

Cancellation of Removal: Eligibility Criteria & Process

Cancellation of Removal is a form of discretionary relief from deportation available to certain non-citizens who can demonstrate strong ties to the U.S. and hardship to qualifying family members. If granted, the person may receive lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (a Green Card) instead of being removed.

Cancellation of Removal is divided into two categories:

1. For Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)
2. For Non-Permanent Residents (Undocumented or Visa Overstays)

---

1. Cancellation of Removal for Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs)

Lawful permanent residents (Green Card holders) facing deportation may apply for Cancellation of Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) if they meet the following criteria:

Eligibility Requirements for LPRs:

✅ Have been an LPR for at least 5 years before the deportation case began.
✅ Have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least 7 years after being admitted in any status.
✅ Have NOT been convicted of an aggravated felony under U.S. immigration law.
✅ Demonstrate positive discretionary factors, such as family ties, employment history, or rehabilitation (if applicable).

🔹 If granted, the LPR retains their Green Card and avoids deportation.

---

2. Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents (Undocumented Individuals)

Non-permanent residents (including undocumented immigrants and visa overstayers) may apply under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), but the standards are much stricter.

Eligibility Requirements for Non-Permanent Residents:

✅ Must have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least 10 years before being placed in removal proceedings.
✅ Must have demonstrated good moral character during that period.
✅ Must NOT have been convicted of certain crimes, including aggravated felonies, drug offenses, or crimes involving moral turpitude.
✅ Must prove that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative who is a:

• U.S. citizen or
• Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR)
  Qualifying relatives include:
• Spouse
• Parent
• Child (under 21 and unmarried)

🔹 If granted, the individual receives a Green Card and becomes a lawful permanent resident.

---

3. Key Considerations

A. The “Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship” Standard

• Hardship must be extreme—beyond what is normally expected from deportation.
• Factors that might qualify:
  • A U.S. citizen child with severe medical conditions who relies on the parent for care.
  • A spouse with disabilities or financial dependence.
  • An elderly U.S. citizen parent with no other family support.
• Financial hardship alone is not enough.

B. Continuous Physical Presence Requirement

• Leaving the U.S. for more than 90 consecutive days OR more than 180 days in total during the required period breaks the 10-year requirement.
• Certain acts, such as committing a crime or receiving a deportation order, can also break continuous residence.

C. Criminal Bars

• Some crimes automatically disqualify a person from applying, including:
  • Aggravated felonies (e.g., drug trafficking, violent crimes).
  • Domestic violence offenses.
  • Certain fraud and theft crimes.

---

4. The Application Process

1. Applicant Must Already Be in Removal Proceedings

   • Cancellation of Removal is not a proactive application—it is a defense against deportation.
   • A person must be in Immigration Court before an Immigration Judge.

2. File Form EOIR-42A (for LPRs) or EOIR-42B (for Non-LPRs)

   • The form is submitted along with supporting evidence, such as medical records, financial statements, and witness testimony.

3. Attend an Immigration Court Hearing

   • The applicant must testify and prove their eligibility in front of a judge.

4. Wait for the Judge’s Decision

   • The judge has full discretion to approve or deny the application.

---

5. Limitations

🔹 Annual Cap for Non-Permanent Residents

• Only 4,000 grants of Cancellation of Removal per year for non-LPRs.
• If the limit is reached, eligible applicants may have to wait or be placed on a waiting list.

🔹 No Automatic Right to Appeal

• If denied, appeals may be possible through the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

🔹 Not Available for People Who Entered Illegally Recently

• Recent arrivals (less than 10 years in the U.S.) are not eligible.

---

6. Conclusion

Cancellation of Removal is a powerful but difficult-to-obtain form of relief from deportation. LPRs need at least 5 years as a Green Card holder and no aggravated felonies, while non-LPRs must show 10 years of continuous residence and extreme hardship to qualifying relatives. Because it is discretionary, success depends on strong documentation and a compelling case. Legal representation is highly recommended.

I would be open to revising (as in, easing the criteria for) "Cancellation of Removal for Non-Permanent Residents (Undocumented Individuals)" noted above, so as to facilitate the retention of contributing members of society.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2025 by smac97

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am against the notion of legitimizing the wanton disregard of American law and widespread unlawful entry into the U.S. (or overstaying visas, which is the other primary mode of unlawful presence in the U.S.).  I agree with the Church's statement on this point:

Many of the refugees that have gone through more security than any other groups of imigrants first crossed borders illegally in other countries. So some of them crossed illegally, then became asylum seekers, then became refugees. The church does not make statements, that I have seen anywhere, that if someone first crossed a border illegally they should now not come into a country as an asylum seeker or refugee.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We simply cannot sustain an open border / disregard immigration law approach.

Which I have said nothing about.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It sounds like you are referencing refugees after all. 

Again, no I am not talking about refugees.  Refugee in the United States is a legal definition and they do not choose which country they go to. 

I am talking about displaced people (the ones who are not refugees) that cross the border illegally either here or in other countries.  They don't all cross borders illeglly, but many of them don't even know they are crossing borders at all let alone if they are legally allowed to cross them or not.

It's not just Mexicans looking for work crossing the border legally or not.  It's Afghans, Syrians, Venezuealns, Guatemalans, Ukrainians and so many other nationalities who are fleeling for their lives. And honestly, for my question it doesn't matter what you call them.  I just want to know if they had to choose between crossing a border illegally or their life would you consider them a criminal?

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From ChatGPT:

The phrase "Not my circus, not my monkeys" is a Polish proverb (originally "Nie mój cyrk, nie moje małpy") that conveys the idea of not getting involved in problems that are not one's responsibility.  The United States is one of the greatest countries/societies in the history of the world.  Perhaps it is the greatest.  Consequently, lots of people want to come here.  Some want to come for understandable and legitimate reasons, others for nefarious purposes.  Regardless, "Not my circus, not my monkeys" starts to have some application when people advance the notion that America has an obligation - legal, moral, whatever - to taken in endless numbers of whomever from wherever who in their own countries have encountered, or might encounter, "violence," or who want to come here for "a better life."  

The United States cannot be all things to all people.  We are among the most generous in the history of the world in terms of taking in immigrants, giving out governmental and private aid (financial, food, etc.), and so on.  That said, we also have serious problems with housing shortages, heavy inflation, crime, 35 trillion or so in national debt, and a host of other problems.  We are still situated to take in some immigrants, but we must do so rationally.  On our terms.  Within the confines of the law.  In ways that to not impair the interests of the United States and its citizens.  Open borders and abdicating enforcement of immigration laws is not the way to go.

There are only two countries that border the United States.  So respectfully, I reject the notion that folks outside of the citizens of Canada and Mexico "get the choice of death or cross the border illegally."

None of which answers my question.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

we remove or mitigate perverse incentives for illegal entry…

Do these include in your view extended wait times or significant costs in filing applications?

Edited January 30, 2025 by Calm

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't like when they are misused.

An example: Jack is sued for battery he supposedly committed at a bar he frequented.  The event happened 7 years ago.  Jack is likely not able to reconstruct his schedule going that far back.  He is also likely to encounter problems in compiling evidence, gathering witness statements, etc.  Consequently, the statute of limitations would be an appropriate time limitation against such a legal claim.

Another example: Jack deliberately and illegally crosses the border, then stays under the radar for X amount of years, and then applies for citizenship because - under your rubric - the SOL bars any penalty for his deliberate violation of the law.  In this context, the SOL is used to subvert justice, not advance it.  So I would oppose this rubric.

Thanks,

-Smac

What if Jack is just stays under the radar for X amount of years, then admits to the crime.  Under your rubric, the SOL bars any penalty for his deliberate violation of the law. wouldn't your logic be the same for Jack?

What about tax law.  Under current law, if a person owes money and the government doesn't collect the debt gets forgiven after 10 years.

What about bankruptcy, are you opposed to bankruptcy? Shouldn't we bring back debtors prisons?

 

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Quote

we remove or mitigate perverse incentives for illegal entry, and heavily penalize those who come here illegally.

Does this include in your view extended wait times or significant costs in filing applications?

Sure.  Let's leverage technology all we can.  Let's incentivize legal entry and heavily disincentivize illegal entry.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  Let's leverage technology all we can.  Let's incentivize legal entry and heavily disincentivize illegal entry.

Thanks,

-Smac

lets incentivize legal entry by making legal possible in the first place.

That would be a start.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What if Jack is just stays under the radar for X amount of years, then admits to the crime. 

Okay.  Let's say that the crime is Jack having stolen a valuable piece of art.  He "admits to the crime."

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Under your rubric, the SOL bars any penalty for his deliberate violation of the law. wouldn't your logic be the same for Jack?

I'm not sure what you mean.  Would Jack get to both A) avoid criminal prosecution for this theft, and also B) keep the artwork he stole?

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What about tax law.  Under current law, if a person owes money and the government doesn't collect the debt gets forgiven after 10 years.

I haven't given this much thought, but I'm okay with the status quo.

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What about bankruptcy, are you opposed to bankruptcy? Shouldn't we bring back debtors prisons?

No and no.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

There are people from countries other than Mexico or Canada who enter the U.S. through Mexico or Canada. Don't be obtuse.

I've been surprised how many Afghans go to Brazil and then make their way North. It doesn't surprise me that they came to the US as the US was in Afghanistan for 20 years and these people often worked side by side with US military and others from the US and know English, but just the route they took to get here.  But then getting out of Afghanistan was such a huge mess for so many they probably just did it the only way they could.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't given this much thought, but I'm okay with the status quo.

doesn't this incentivize not paying taxes?

 

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No and no.

Don't bankruptcy laws incentivize not paying debts?

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Sure.  Let's leverage technology all we can.  Let's incentivize legal entry and heavily disincentivize illegal entry.

lets incentivize legal entry by making legal possible in the first place.

That would be a start.

Sure.

But we ought not warp reality in the process.  Look at the mess in California arising from addressing crime by re-categorizing it, where penalties for theft under $950 have essentially disappeared:

Quote

Why is shoplifting so rampant {in California}? Because state law holds that stealing merchandise worth $950 or less is just a misdemeanor, which means that law enforcement probably won’t bother to investigate, and if they do, prosecutors will let it go.

Why won’t store employees do anything about this theft? Because they don’t want to take the risk. I doubt many would, knowing that a Rite Aid employee was murdered recently after trying to stop two thieves. Moreover, a confrontation within the store risks harming not only store staff but also customers, so employees are almost certainly instructed by their managers to do nothing.

Because of this law, California is extending an open invitation to anyone to walk in and take. Just like that—since they know that police or prosecutors won’t bother with a misdemeanor complaint and that store personnel won’t stop them.

Creating a system that incentivizes illegal entry (or overstaying visas) is akin to "extending an open invitation to anyone to" engage in these illegal behaviors.  I think that is a bad idea.

I am all for the proposition of setting up a fair and efficient and equitable process for lawfully entering into and working in the United States.  But I don't think this can work if we simply ignore the notion of the United States granting permission to enter and stay here.  Securing the border and enforcing immigration laws are important components of national sovereignty.  We can do that and enact generous, and lawful, and well-managed, programs for lawful immigration into the United States.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

Don't bankruptcy laws incentivize not paying debts?

BKs come with some pretty hefty downsides.  And BK law benefits Americans.

By your logic, what "downsides" would you accept relative to illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the SOL?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We have refugee applications for these purposes.

Refugees do NOT apply.  They are chosen.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am genuinely curious as to how many of the millions who are unlawfully present in the U.S. were fleeing "death," whose choices were "death" or illegally entering into, or staying in, the United States. 

I did not ask about the US.  I specifically asked about crossing the borders in other countries.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As opposed to, say, women and children who are trafficked into the U.S., those who see more/better economic opportunity (I think huge numbers fit into this category), those who come for nefarious reasons, etc.

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 29, 2025 by Rain

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

doesn't this incentivize not paying taxes?

As a practical matter, it seems difficult to get away with that for 10 years.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Refugees do NOT apply.  They are chosen.

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Can a person apply for entry into the U.S. as a "refugee"?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Can a Person Apply for Entry into the U.S. as a Refugee?

Yes, a person can apply for entry into the U.S. as a refugee, but they must meet specific criteria and follow the process outlined by U.S. immigration law and the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

---

1. Who Qualifies as a Refugee?

Under Section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), a refugee is someone who: ✅ Is outside their home country.
✅ Has a well-founded fear of persecution based on:

• Race
• Religion
• Nationality
• Political opinion
• Membership in a particular social group
  ✅ Is unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to that persecution.
  ✅ Has not firmly resettled in another country before applying.
  ✅ Passes U.S. security and background checks.

🚫 Not Eligible if:

• They are already in the U.S. (instead, they must apply for asylum).
• They have committed serious crimes or engaged in terrorism.
• They have firmly resettled in another country before applying.

---

2. How to Apply for Refugee Status

A person cannot apply directly to the U.S. government for refugee status like they would for a visa. Instead, they must go through a referral process:

Step 1: Referral to the U.S. Refugee Program

• Most applicants are referred to USRAP by:
  • The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
  • A U.S. Embassy or NGO.
  • Certain family members in the U.S. under special programs.

Step 2: Interview and Screening

• If referred, the applicant will be interviewed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
• They must prove they meet the refugee definition.
• Background checks, medical exams, and security screenings are conducted.

Step 3: Approval and Resettlement

• If approved, the refugee is assigned to a resettlement agency in the U.S.
• They receive assistance with housing, work authorization, and integration into society.

---

3. Can Someone Apply for Refugee Status at a U.S. Border or Airport?

🚫 No, a person cannot apply for refugee status at a U.S. border, airport, or while already in the U.S.
✅ Instead, they must apply for asylum if they are physically present in the U.S. or at a port of entry.

---

4. Difference Between Refugee and Asylum Status

Category	Refugee Status	Asylum Status
Location of Applicant	Must apply from outside the U.S.	Must apply from inside the U.S. or at a port of entry
Application Process	Must be referred by UNHCR, U.S. embassy, or NGO	File Form I-589 with USCIS
Screening Process	Extensive vetting before entry	Applicant may enter first, then undergo screening
Work Authorization	Can work immediately upon arrival	Must wait 180 days after applying
Green Card Eligibility	Can apply after 1 year in the U.S.	Can apply after 1 year if granted asylum

---

5. Conclusion

Yes, a person can apply for entry into the U.S. as a refugee, but they must apply from outside the U.S. and go through USRAP. They cannot apply directly but must be referred by UNHCR, a U.S. embassy, or an NGO. If they are already inside the U.S., they must apply for asylum instead.

So it looks like a person in dire circumstances who is outside the U.S. "can apply for entry into the U.S. as a refugee," but would "apply for asylum" if they are here already.

From from ChatGPT:

Quote

You said: What are the differences between an application to the U.S. for "refugee" status as opposed to requesting "asylum"?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Differences Between Applying for Refugee Status vs. Requesting Asylum in the U.S.

While refugee status and asylum both provide protection to individuals fleeing persecution, they differ significantly in where and how a person applies, as well as in the processing procedures.

---

1. Key Differences Between Refugee Status and Asylum

Criteria	Refugee Status	Asylum
Where to Apply	Must apply from outside the U.S.	Must apply from within the U.S. or at a port of entry
Legal Basis	INA § 101(a)(42) (Refugee definition)	INA § 208 (Asylum provisions)
Processing Agency	U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)	U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or Immigration Court
Referral Required?	Yes, must be referred by UNHCR, U.S. embassy, or NGO	No, individuals can apply directly for asylum
Interview Location	At a U.S. refugee resettlement center abroad	At a USCIS asylum office or in Immigration Court (if in removal proceedings)
Screening Process	Extensive security vetting and background checks before approval	Screening occurs after the applicant is already in the U.S.
Work Authorization	Can work immediately upon arrival	Must wait 180 days after applying to receive work authorization
Travel to the U.S.	Enter the U.S. legally with refugee status	May enter with or without legal documentation before applying
Quotas/Annual Limits?	Yes, subject to a cap set by the President each year	No cap—no numerical limit on asylum grants
Path to Green Card (Permanent Residency)	Eligible to apply 1 year after arrival	Eligible to apply 1 year after being granted asylum

---

2. Refugee Status: Application Process

A person cannot apply directly for refugee status in the U.S.; they must go through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).

Steps to Apply for Refugee Status:

1. Referral to USRAP
   • Must be referred by:
     • UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees)
     • A U.S. Embassy or NGO
     • A U.S. relative under certain programs
2. USCIS Interview Abroad
   • Conducted at a Refugee Support Center (RSC) outside the U.S.
   • Must prove a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
3. Security Vetting & Medical Exams
   • Extensive background checks.
4. Approval & Resettlement
   • If approved, assigned to a U.S. resettlement agency.
   • Receives assistance with housing, employment, and integration.

🚫 Cannot apply for refugee status at a U.S. border or airport—must apply from outside the country.

---

3. Asylum: Application Process

Asylum seekers must be physically present in the U.S. or at a port of entry to request asylum.

Ways to Request Asylum:

1. Affirmative Asylum (For Those Not in Removal Proceedings)

   • File Form I-589 (Application for Asylum) with USCIS within one year of arrival.
   • Attend an asylum interview with a USCIS officer.
   • If denied, the case may be referred to Immigration Court.

2. Defensive Asylum (For Those in Removal Proceedings)

   • A person already facing deportation can request asylum as a defense in Immigration Court.
   • The immigration judge decides whether to grant asylum or order removal.

🚫 People who have already been firmly resettled in another country are not eligible for asylum.

---

4. Key Legal & Policy Considerations

• Annual Refugee Quotas: Refugee admissions are limited by presidential determinations (e.g., 125,000 cap in FY 2023). Asylum has no numerical limit.
• One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum: Asylum seekers must apply within one year of arriving in the U.S., unless they qualify for an exception.
• Security Concerns & Vetting: Refugees are vetted before arriving in the U.S., while asylum seekers undergo vetting after entering.
• Expedited Removal & Asylum: If someone arrives at the U.S. border without proper documentation, they may be placed in expedited removal and must pass a credible fear interview before being allowed to apply for asylum.

---

5. Conclusion

• Refugees must apply from outside the U.S. through a referral process and wait for approval before entering.
• Asylum seekers must already be in the U.S. or at the border and apply directly.
• Refugee admissions are limited annually, while asylum grants are unlimited but subject to strict scrutiny.
• Both refugees and asylees can apply for Green Cards after one year.

Refugee status is pre-approved before entry, whereas asylum is requested after arrival. The processes share similar humanitarian goals but differ in application, vetting, and procedural requirements.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

Just now, smac97 said:

BKs come with some pretty hefty downsides.  And BK law benefits Americans.

By your logic, what "downsides" would you accept relative to illegal immigrants in the U.S. and the SOL?

Thanks,

-Smac

A statute of Limitations is a limitation on government.  It means that the government has a certain time to enforce a law or it has to forget about it.  It benefits law enforcement by saying "hurry up or drop it"  It benefits citizens by allowing them not to constantly live in fear of being accused of something that happened a long time ago. It allows for a reset.

the "downsides" of a SOL for someone here illegally would be an increased urgency in enforcement. The current law encourages the enforcement to be lazy, take their time, there is always tomorrow, and someone else can do the job.

In my line of work, the statute of limitation actually motivates government enforcement.  The three year statute means the government can't let the investigation drag on forever, the 10 year statute means the government has to collection action. The 6 year statute on criminal enforcement means that the government need to wrap up their case. 

An upcoming Statute of limitations initiates an "all hand on deck" attitude, and missing a SOL deadline can get the government employee in serious trouble.

Part of your complaint about the current system, is that their isn't consistent enforcement.  The lack of a statute of limitations on enforcement is a big contributor to this problem. 

A SOL would put the government in a position of "put up or shut up".  It would allow the government to focus on those who have recently come across the border, making the border secure.

How does deporting someone who has been here for 30 years actually contribute to border security anyway?

Right now, because there is no SOL, no deadline for government action, government bureaucrats can just do their job another day.  Another day becomes another month, another month, becomes another year,  another year becomes another decade.

No hurry, someone else can do the job, we always have more time. 

 

 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From ChatGPT:

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it looks like a person in dire circumstances who is outside the U.S. "can apply for entry into the U.S. as a refugee," but would "apply for asylum" if they are here already.

"A person cannot apply directly for refugee status in the U.S.; they must go through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP)."

They must be referred, or like I said "chosen". Once they are referred they can go through the "application" process.  That is not the same as say applying for a job and then including referrals.  It is being referred and then including the paperwork if the want to accept the referral. And again, before some of them get that referral they often cross a border somewhere illegally.

As for asylum, they can only be here already if they got here somehow and many of those got here by crossing the (or several) border(s) illegally and then asking for asylum. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From from ChatGPT:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Danzo]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As a practical matter, it seems difficult to get away with that for 10 years.

Thanks,

-Smac

As a practical matter, people do it all of the time. A big part of my time is devoted to strategies that take advantage of the SOL for people who can't afford to pay the tax bill.