Hacker News Reader

Comment by Rebelgecko | Hacker News Reader

>Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US

Does that happen automatically when someone just asks for asylum? Or does asylum have to actually be granted first?

Yes. If you use a fake passport to get past customs and request asylum, and your request is denied, you are simply deported and you do not serve jail time and are not barred from future entry into the united states.

Jail time doesn't determine whether or not an act is legal (consider running a red light or underage drinking). In particular, the law you cited above is pretty clear that entering the US to seek asylum is illegal but may be forgiven if asylum is granted. To be clear, these detainees are held under the pretense that they are going to be deported (however they must first be processed). The valid criticism of ICE is that they are apparently detaining US citizens and the detention conditions are unsatisfactory, but it's not a question that it's illegal to enter the US to seek asylum.

I mean, there's a particular act that the government can't prosecute you for, can't punish you for, and can't take into consideration when making decisions about you, in what sense is that act illegal? That's getting into "if a tree falls in the forest..." territory.

"Illegal" is a well defined term. Punishment or lackthereof are irrelevant.

What about if you also can't be prosecuted or convicted for it?

Illegal immigration is a prosecutable offense replete with fines and prison sentences. As I understand it, a judge hears the cases and can sentence an individual to deportation, fines, or prison time depending on the defendant's circumstances. IANAL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

I recommend reading up on Turcios v. INS and Akinmade v. INS. Both cases of refugees who lied to Customs and used false documents, and the court determined that is valid if fleeing persecution to seek asylum.

It would indeed be really interesting to understand how the court was able to rationalize that; INA is pretty explicit. In any case, I doubt typical "illegal immigration" can be meaningfully described as "fleeing persecution", and I say that with an abundance of sympathy for those garden variety illegal immigrants.

They didn't rationalize that because that's not what those cases were about. See my other reply to OP.

This is completely wrong. The court determined no such thing in either one of those cases. Both of these are cases in which the Ninth Circuit disagreed with findings made by the Board of Immigration Appeals in denying asylum relief and reversed said decisions. Insofar as passports/documents are referenced, it is in relation to testimonial credibility. Those decisions do not endorse or in any way legalize the use of false documents or the commission of illegal entry.

(Also, ninth circuit court holdings are only applicable in the ninth circuit.)

This is simply not true.

It has to be granted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com