Is Obama preparing to yet again play to his far left globalist base of radical Mexican-American open-border nationalists (La Raza quickly comes to mind) by circumventing US immigration law and, of course, Congress? Is there anything this guy won't do to satiate his verminous allies on the Left? That's rhetorical, of course.
Reportedly, Obama is planning to grant refugee status--on a "pilot project" basis, of course--to persons still residing in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras, this to eliminate the threats posed to them should they opt to tackle that long, arduous and dangerous journey through the Mexican heartland in order to illegally breach our southwestern border. How very compassionate. But, isn't that just another way of aiding and abetting gate-crashers? But, no matter. After all, we're talking about poor, innocent suffering children mired in poverty. Right? Surely, we should protect these "refugees" from themselves. No?
Just so we're clear as to what the legal definition of refugee really is, this: Sec 101(a)(42) of the Immigration & Nationality Act defines a refugee as a person who has fled his/her country of origin owing to a well-founded fear (clear/reasonable probability) of persecution (threat to life or freedom) on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and who is unable or unwilling to return to his/her country of origin and to avail himself or herself of its protection. (Carefully note: if a person still within his/her country of origin, refugee status may be granted on a case-by-case basis by the President, but only AFTER consultation with Congress AND only if that person meets the definition of a refugee.)
As can be seen, there is nothing in this definition which suggests that sub-standard housing, poor diet, poverty, gang wars, or drug cartel shoot-outs are bases for a well-founded fear of persecution. If that were the case, many folks in Detroit, Chicago and other inner city areas of the US would meet that definition--to say nothing of the nearly billion other people around the world--who would then be within their rights to seek refugee status in Canada!
Excepted from consideration are those who have participated in the persecution of others, who have been convicted of a serious nonpolitical crime or are considered security threats (terrorist activities/ties) to the US.
Normally, a person who has fled his country of origin must first be interviewed by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) to determine if, in fact, he/she meets the internationally-accepted definition of a refugee, which is essentially that definition already adopted by the US. He/She then falls under the temporary protection of the UN (refugee camp) until such time that a third country agrees to resettle him/her as a refugee or until such time that he/she may be safely repatriated to his/her country of origin, whichever comes first. Resettlement by a third country is conditioned on that third country's having also interviewed him/her to determine if, in fact, s/he does meet the definition of refugee.
As for a person already in the US, per 208(a)(b)(1), asylee status may be granted within one year after his/her entry if he/she can demonstrate that, in effect, he/she meets the definition of a refugee. Thus, the only difference between an asylee and a refugee is that the former is already in the US.
Then, of course, per 212(d)(5), a person, of "significant public interest", may also be paroled into the US owing to "urgent humanitarian" or "emergency reasons", e.g. Indochinese during the aftermath of the Vietnam war and Cuban-Haitians.
Let's hope Obama and his political advisors carefully focus on these definitions and requirements before unilaterally committing their political fortunes and our dangerously dwindling wealth to yet another questionable or unlawful way for Central Americans to enter the US.
Finally, like their Liberal acolytes, this Administration continues to muddy the waters with political correctness and agenda-driven word-smithing. They deliberately muddle immigration terminology to legitimize the illegitimate. To wit, the term "illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron. By definition, an immigrant is a legal entrant--not illegal. An entrant is either an illegal alien/undocumented alien (entered without inspection and US approval) or an immigrant/refugee/asylee/parolee/non-immigrant visa holder. Thus, any person entering our country without inspection/approval enters illegally. By LAW, therefore, that person is an illegal entrant/illegal alien/undocumented alien--NOT an "illegal immigrant"! Within the annals of immigration law there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". That term of art is a Liberal contrivance to confound and obfuscate.
Please keep all this in mind when listening to the politically-driven or wholly uneducated cacaphony of chatter in the media. Some is deliberately disinformational. Some is just plain dumb.
Muslim University Student in Canada Refuses to Do Course Work with Women - Here's the thing: why come and live in a Western country when it is the sharia you wish to live under? Why attend Western universities when you want to live ...
6 months ago