Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 82
Thanks Tree21Thanks

Thread: Session - Says Domestic Violence Is Not Grounds for Asylum

  1. #21
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    WARNING

    Threads merged


  2. #22
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,942
    Thanks
    17164

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I disagree. I think an asylum claim can only be valid if the individual has suffered some sort of political oppression. Domestic violence exists in every society, including our own. We can't offer shelter to every battered woman in the Western Hemisphere who manages to walk here.
    The Session ruling is more than just domestic abuse and it applies to all women around the world whose government does not protect them. Sessions ruling is "Generally, claims by aliens pertaining to domestic violence or gang violence perpetrated by non-governmental actors will not qualify for asylum,"

    Since terrorists and gangs in some countries freely rape and abuse women what do you think Sessions ruling says to all women of the world? Mind you this is just HIS interpretation.
    Last edited by Minotaur; 11th June 2018 at 04:05 PM.
    Thanks from HayJenn, the watchman and Panzareta

  3. #23
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,942
    Thanks
    17164

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Why? We have an obligation first to the American people. There are plenty of Latin American nations where these folks can get asylum.
    Sure. Let them be raped and beaten by gangs in countries that have no protections. It is not our problem. We need to focus on Kardashian or beating comedians or complain about so-called fake news. Jesus would send those who don't care straight to hell over acceptance of heaping pain on those who are hurting. But oh well...
    Last edited by Minotaur; 11th June 2018 at 04:13 PM.
    Thanks from BoiseBo

  4. #24
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I disagree. It's hardly a settled question because some oversight board (appointed by a president) made a decision. Something done under one president can be undone by another administration.

    In point of fact, it's just not workable to offer asylum to people whose oppressive conditions are clearly not political.
    Legal experts would disagree with you

    On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that a Salvadoran woman who came to the U.S. in 2014 to escape an abusive husband did not qualify for asylum under United States law. An immigration court had previously granted her asylum, allowing her to remain in the country legally, but Sessions reconsidered the finding, as part of a broader rethinking of whether or not victims of domestic abuse can qualify for protection under U.S. asylum law. The decision means that the U.S. can now begin to turn away tens of thousands of women who arrive in this country every year, seeking safety from violence and abuse at home. “He could be repealing sixty to seventy per cent of asylum jurisprudence,” Deborah Anker, an immigration expert at Harvard Law School, told me, speaking about Sessions, before the decision was announced. “Its ramifications are extraordinary.”

    Since becoming Attorney General, Sessions has limited the ability of asylum seekers to appeal decisions, restricted the discretion that immigration judges have over their own dockets, and used his authority as Attorney General to personally review immigration cases—as he did in the case of the Salvadoran domestic-violence victim. “ ‘Zero tolerance’ is part of Sessions’s ongoing plans to rewrite asylum law,” Michelle Brané, of the Women’s Refugee Commission, told me. “The Administration is unilaterally dismantling access to any protection for those seeking safety.” Just a month after it was announced, the zero-tolerance policy is giving rise to a full-blown a crisis at the border. This may give Sessions the pretext he needs to institute further changes. In El Paso, as Texas Monthly reported earlier this month, officers are intercepting asylum seekers travelling from Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, before they can cross the bridge that separates the two cities. Elsewhere in Texas, asylum seekers are being told there isn’t enough room to process them on the American side of the border. “They are using that tactic as a way to push people out and deny people asylum,” Ruben García, who runs a migrant shelter along the border, told the Los Angeles Times.

    Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency in charge of processing people as they arrive in the U.S., has been telling asylum seekers to wait in Mexico until American authorities have the capacity to admit them. Many legal scholars say that making people who are looking for safety in the U.S. wait across the border violates both American and international human-rights law, which together hold that asylum seekers cannot be sent back to countries where they are likely to be tortured or killed. Mexico also has a well-documented history of mistreating migrants in its custody and of inappropriately turning them around at its southern border, with Guatemala. Nevertheless, last month, representatives from the Department of Homeland Security met with Mexican officials to work out an arrangement—known as a “safe third-country agreement”—that would allow the U.S. to automatically send Central American asylum seekers that travel through Mexico on their way to the U.S. back to Mexico.

    The Trump Administration also appears to be putting more asylum seekers behind bars. In March, the A.C.L.U. filed a complaint in federal court alleging that the Administration was detaining asylum seekers indefinitely, in some cases even after they passed the standard screening, known as the credible-fear interview, at the border. Five ice field offices, the lawyers wrote in their brief, “have detained these asylum seekers based not on individualized determinations that they pose a flight risk or a danger to the community, but rather to deter other migrants from seeking refuge here.” The lead plaintiff in the case is a teacher from Haiti, who has remained in detention for close to two years, despite having won his asylum case, twice, in immigration court. The government is refusing to release him while it appeals the decisions.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-asylum-system

    So this administration is not even letting people who have already won asylum go free.

    Some of these women and children who are sent back home? Yeah, they end up dying at the hands of the very people they sought refuge from.

    And I don't care if it's political or not. People are dying from domestic and gang violence.

  5. #25
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,078
    Thanks
    30797

    From
    SWUSA
    Sessions was a 2nd rate Senator. He recieved massive and noteworthy opposition to his appointments. He did not know enough not to remove himself while Trump was talking Russia knowing he would play a part in the administration. Sessions had to recuse himself from the most important investigation since Watergate. Trump rued the day he even appointed Beauregard.

    This dude has never made sense. In fact, he is the fool in foolish of the definition of nonsense.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36470

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    so , what happens if the judges tell Sessions to go piss up a rope?
    Then Congress can change the law. The separating of children and parents at the border is a separate issue from whether these women should get asylum.

  7. #27
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,915
    Thanks
    36470

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by HayJenn View Post
    Legal experts would disagree with you

    On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that a Salvadoran woman who came to the U.S. in 2014 to escape an abusive husband did not qualify for asylum under United States law. An immigration court had previously granted her asylum, allowing her to remain in the country legally, but Sessions reconsidered the finding, as part of a broader rethinking of whether or not victims of domestic abuse can qualify for protection under U.S. asylum law. The decision means that the U.S. can now begin to turn away tens of thousands of women who arrive in this country every year, seeking safety from violence and abuse at home. “He could be repealing sixty to seventy per cent of asylum jurisprudence,” Deborah Anker, an immigration expert at Harvard Law School, told me, speaking about Sessions, before the decision was announced. “Its ramifications are extraordinary.”
    I looked at this whole article, and while Ms. Anker is quoted in the first paragraph saying something very broad, without much in the way of specifics, and it's the only quote from her in the article. It's also the only part of the article that addresses the Sessions decision which is the subject of this thread. And she doesn't say he's wrong. Somehow I doubt 70% of the people seeking asylum are women fleeing domestic violence or people fleeing gangs. If that's true, we really do need to rethink our strategy, since we should be helping the countries involved reduce the suffering of their people.

    I believe asylum should be offered to people who suffer from political oppression or violence. Regular old violence exists everywhere and should be dealt with in some other way.

    And I don't care if it's political or not. People are dying from domestic and gang violence.
    They are dying of disease and poverty in other places. Besides, people are doing from domestic and gang violence in THIS country. Should we be shipping all the innocents from dangerous urban places to villages in the midwest to save them?

    I'm not unaware or unsympathetic to the problem, but using our immigration policy to save them is a poor use of our resources. We could do more, at less cost, diplomatically with their own governments.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    9,821
    Thanks
    7783

    From
    In my mind
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Why? We have an obligation first to the American people. There are plenty of Latin American nations where these folks can get asylum.
    Where on earth did you read that? What is that, some perverted form of manifest destiny?
    Thanks from Panzareta

  9. #29
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    28,667
    Thanks
    20565

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallie Knoetze View Post
    Ms. HayJenn,

    Makes sense.
    Too bad these women weren't models who were willing to do soft porn. They could just file the paperwork and go on to marry billionaires.
    Thanks from BoiseBo and Dragonfly5

  10. #30
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    52,640
    Thanks
    40511

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I looked at this whole article, and while Ms. Anker is quoted in the first paragraph saying something very broad, without much in the way of specifics, and it's the only quote from her in the article. It's also the only part of the article that addresses the Sessions decision which is the subject of this thread. And she doesn't say he's wrong. Somehow I doubt 70% of the people seeking asylum are women fleeing domestic violence or people fleeing gangs. If that's true, we really do need to rethink our strategy, since we should be helping the countries involved reduce the suffering of their people.

    I believe asylum should be offered to people who suffer from political oppression or violence. Regular old violence exists everywhere and should be dealt with in some other way.

    They are dying of disease and poverty in other places. Besides, people are doing from domestic and gang violence in THIS country. Should we be shipping all the innocents from dangerous urban places to villages in the midwest to save them?

    I'm not unaware or unsympathetic to the problem, but using our immigration policy to save them is a poor use of our resources. We could do more, at less cost, diplomatically with their own governments.
    I believe asylum should be offered to people who suffer from political oppression or violence. Regular old violence exists everywhere and should be dealt with in some other way.
    So you think domestic and gang violence is regular old "violence"? Really? And you think country's in Central American government's are going to help these women and children?

    Ms. Cifuentes fled from Guatemala in 2005 and, according to the decision, she “suffered repugnant abuse by her husband” after marrying when she was 17. After the couple’s first child was born, Ms. Cifuentes said her husband beat her weekly, breaking her nose. He threw burning paint thinner on her and raped her.

    The appeals judges were persuaded that Ms. Cifuentes also met other requirements by showing that the Guatemalan government would not protect her. She went repeatedly to the police but was told they would not interfere in a domestic dispute, according to the ruling. Once when her husband bloodied her face she called the police to their home, but they refused to arrest him. When Ms. Cifuentes fled to another Guatemalan city, he hunted her down. She came secretly to the United States with her two children and now lives in Missouri.

    An immigration judge first denied her asylum petition. But the appeals board confirmed that she was part of a social group of married women in Guatemala who cannot escape their spouses. The board wrote that it was persuaded by evidence presented by Ms. Cifuentes that Guatemala “has a culture of machismo and family violence” and that the police routinely failed to respond. Lawyers for Ms. Cifuentes said the decision was not likely to open any immigration floodgates. For now, Ms. Musalo noted, it applies only to women from Guatemala, and abuse victims will still have to meet other rigorous requirements. In 2013, the courts approved a total of only 9,933 asylum cases nationwide.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/30/u...lum-in-us.html

    Seeking asylum in the US is a hard and long task all on it's own. The least we can do it take in some women and kids who have suffered violence you nor I could ever imagine.

    I stand 100% by my comment. This is shameful.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Decriminalizing domestic violence
    By The Man in forum Sexuality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 3rd December 2017, 03:20 PM
  2. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 1st March 2017, 10:43 AM
  3. NFL: New Domestic Violence Consequences
    By boontito in forum Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 31st August 2014, 08:28 PM
  4. Domestic Violence
    By Gypsy in forum Civil Rights
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22nd September 2010, 04:17 AM
  5. On Domestic Violence in the US
    By MisterE in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 24th May 2007, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed