Sorry if I sound a little frustrated here, I'm more just trying to be as direct and clear as possible (so please don't take my italics/emphasis as harshness): what I'm saying about the
right to seek asylum, and the very legal language I quoted,
wasn't international law, it is
U.S. federal law. Every argument you're making about the UN or universal human rights is simply not pertinent to what I'm saying because I'm not citing international law, and so your assertion that I'm making 'presumptions' is just not accurate. I am not presuming anything, I am not wishing asylum law into being as an imaginary "given" -- it is already the plain language of U.S. Code, Title 8. Now do I think there is a moral component to this situation, on top of the legal one? Of course, how could one not? But I'm not conflating them.
There are exceptions spelled out in the law as well -- for instance, people only have one year from date of arrival to submit their asylum petitions, unless they can successfully argue for a waiver. But to be clear, the notion mentioned by Cause -- that asylum seekers have to settle in "the first safe country" -- isn't one of those exceptions in U.S. law, at all. Maybe it exists in some other country -- I'm seeing Trumpsters claim it online, so they must have got it somewhere. But the only thing that comes remotely close in the U.S. is an exception where the Attorney General can remove individual aliens to another safe country by bi- or multi-lateral agreements to that effect.
To address "America can't just let everyone in" I will just say it's not an argument, any more than is "One doctor can't remove
everyone's appendix." I mean sure, true, but who's asking them to? When would that ever be a real thing? And does that really address what they
are responsible for? In terms of the "don't blame refugees" thing I am with you there, Cause, but maybe it would help to note that while we talk about refugees and asylees pretty interchangeably, they actually have a pretty important distinction in the law. Refugees inherently apply from outside the U.S., and like most countries we have (ever-shrinking) maximum #s, while asylees make it to the U.S. first and apply from within (at a port of entry or not, doesn't matter, and the law is clear there). And there's a reason for that: the law acknowledges that situational differences matter. Would I argue that there's a moral component to the reduction of refugee numbers the U.S. is taking in? Yes I would. But when it comes to asylees, I don't have to, because there are no numbers in the law. The morality of accepting asylum seekers and hearing their claims, at least, is baked in.
This post has been edited by worry: 28 November 2018 - 08:44 PM