Birth right citizenship

[homersapien 11,373]

12 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Sure he did Brother Homer. He ran against some 16 other opponents in his own party. Proceeded to defeat "entitled to the presidency hillary". Many of us held our nose and voted Trump for no other reason than SC picks but in your mind we are "'stupid". Of course you and the media have done all you can to de- legitimize his presidency with the Russia BS.... The man has held held strong thus creating the opportunity. 

He did not happen to be there. He was elected because the "ignorant" wanted him in office for the selections.

OK, that's a fair interpretation. 

My point was that any Republican would have been in position to appoint two judges (thanks to McConnell).  And let's face it, Trump was hardly the GOP's best candidate. 

And he was elected because the "ignorant" had disproportional power thanks to the Electoral College.  He lost the popular vote. 

But if you want to give him credit for winning the election, I can't argue that.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

13 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Numbers being out of the norm do change how Fox and the President reference this thing. This is not a grassroots mass marching to the border. Feel sure they will be afforded the process but the entire things seems well organized.

A wise man once said " Do not piss on my leg and tell me it is raining"

A bunch of people who want to make a dangerous trip on foot will tend to self-organize for protection.  I doesn't take a nefarious outside leader to make it happen.

And really, if there was someone organizing this, don't you think it would be known?  

Piss or rain, you are falling for Trump's characterization of this.  It's pure fear mongering.

[homersapien 11,373]

Pure fear mongering.  And a call to action for crazy anti-semites.

 

Trump Still Enabling George Soros Conspiracy Theory After Bomb Threats, Synagogue Shooting

“Do you think somebody is funding the caravan? Do you think somebody is paying for the caravan?” a reporter asked.

“I wouldn’t be surprised. I wouldn’t be surprised,” Trump said.

“George Soros? Who’s paying for it?” a reporter interjected.

“I don’t know who. But I wouldn’t be surprised,” Trump replied. “A lot of people say yes.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-george-soros-conspiracy_us_5bda370ee4b0da7bfc16e63a

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Piss or rain, you are falling for Trump's characterization of this.  It's pure fear mongering.

I do not know what Trump or Fox has said about it. I have been off grid other than this board. Just seems odd to me.

[homersapien 11,373]

10 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

I do not know what Trump or Fox has said about it. I have been off grid other than this board. Just seems odd to me.

Well, please let me help:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-focuses-on-immigration-issues-ahead-of-midterm-elections/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/01/politics/trump-ad-republicans-immigration-scare-tactics/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pushing-every-button-trump-mobilizes-the-government-in-campaigns-final-days/2018/10/30/009067b2-dc52-11e8-b732-3c72cbf131f2_story.html?utm_term=.11060be84658

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/midterms-2018-election-migrant-caravan-us-update-tracker-trump-asylum-a8601401.html

etc., etc.

 

As far as Fox is concerned, they are the messengers for the message.  As always.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

A bunch of people who want to make a dangerous trip on foot will tend to self-organize for protection.  I doesn't take a nefarious outside leader to make it happen.

Salty makes a valid point. These numbers are unprecedented. This looks like an organized effort. 

Mark my word, it will take months, if not years, to process all of the claims - and I mean the timeframe people will be waiting at the boarder just to file the claim for asylum. The man-power in our system isn’t equipped for this. Ignorant people think it’s simple, but they are blind to the many facets involved. The I-589 application is quite complex.

[SaltyTiger 7,798]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

a reporter asked.

 

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

a reporter interjected.

reads like some reporter wanted to print a story about President Trump "enabling Soros"

[TitanTiger 20,482]

 

Quote

 

How a lie about George Soros and the migrant caravan multiplied online

USA TODAY followed the rapid spread of a social media conspiracy theory about George Soros and migrants that grew from obscurity to the political mainstream.

Brad Heath, Matt Wynn and Jessica Guynn, USA TODAY
2:27 p.m. CDT Oct. 31, 2018

 

This is the life of a lie.

Three weeks ago, a caravan of Hondurans began walking nearly 2,000 miles to the United States. Their ranks grew as they inched north and, along with them, falsehoods grew, too. But one stands out: a conspiracy theory that liberal billionaire George Soros, a Jewish immigrant, is paying the migrants to make the journey – or even orchestrating it.

Members of Congress and the president’s son both repeated it. Conservative celebrities, too.

It also may have resonated in darker places. Cesar Sayoc, the man charged with mailing pipe bombs to Soros and other prominent critics of President Donald Trump, dwelled at length online about conspiracy theories involving the Hungarian-American philanthropist. Robert Bowers, charged with killing 11 people worshiping in a Pittsburgh synagogue on Saturday, used his social media accounts to post extensively about the caravan, including circulating an image of refugees in Guatemala purportedly climbing into a truck with a Star of David on the side.

But it began with a handful of posts in the caravan’s early days.

One of the first was from a North Carolina writer who goes by the screen name “lorettatheprole.” Loretta Malakie has more than 6,000 followers on Twitter, to whom she directs frequent posts about “white genocide,” Jews and the “invading force” approaching the border. 

On Oct. 14, Malakie posted a link to an article about the caravan, with a single word of commentary: “Soros.”

That same day, identical posts appeared over the course of 20 minutes in six pro-Trump Facebook groups. Combined, those six groups had 165,000 members. A user who gave the name Philip Balzano, a Trump supporter from Chicago, wrote to the Trump Train group: “Here Comes ANOTHER Group of Paid for New Demoncratic Voters Just in Time for the Primaries... The Financier aka ‘Win at All Costs’ ‘Never Let a Good Crisis Go to Waste’ the Evil George Soros and His 140+ Orgs, Should Be Classified as Terrorist and Terrorist Orgs.”

Malakie declined to comment, though on Twitter she panned the USA TODAY reporter who called her as “evil.” Balzano did not respond to an interview request sent through Facebook.

The Soros theory was not new – it had made the rounds during previous caravans in the spring and again in August. In fact, one Facebook user posting in October provided as evidence a video of Glenn Beck discussing the spring caravan’s alleged connections to Soros.

This time, though, the theory snowballed, gaining political purchase as the caravan became a flashpoint in the final weeks of a contentious midterm campaign. 

“It’s really significant how these memes can go from feverswamp-ish places to be amplified by lawmakers, even the president," said David Carroll, associate professor at The New School's Parsons School of Design in New York. “From there, the impact on world events can’t be underestimated.”

Lies, of course, are not new either. But social media can turn a breeze into a hurricane. It carried this falsehood to millions with a few taps on a screen. It also left a distinct trail that makes it possible to follow how lies spread and who told them, a map of their trajectory from the darker corners of the internet to the political mainstream.

USA TODAY followed that path by examining tens of thousands of social media posts on three major mainstream social media sites: Twitter, Facebook and Reddit.

Over the next three days, a few louder social media voices weighed in. By Oct. 16 – four days after the caravan departed – the combined following of accounts mentioning both Soros and the caravan had reached 2 million, still a pebble in the flood tide of social media. (The total includes some duplicates because people follow more than one account.)

On Twitter, someone with the username “LibertyBell1000” warned about 42,000 followers that Soros had “manufactured yet another immigrant caravan ‘crisis.’ ” Another, using the name “WhoWolfe,” asked “Anybody else think Soros and the Dirty Dems are behind this?”

More posts spread across Facebook. Trump supporter Randy Penrod posted in a group called “The Deplorable's,” with about 186,000 members, “Our stable leader just called out the Soros conspired invasion of new Democrat voters in a tweet just moments ago.”

Tap, tap, tap.

It took just one more day for the theory to reach critical mass, breaking through into widespread public consciousness.

The evening of Oct. 17, a Republican member of Congress posted a video on Twitter of what he said was people in Honduras handing out small sums of money to migrants.

“Soros? US-backed NGOs? Time to investigate the source!” he wrote.

Rep. Matt Gaetz would later concede that he was mistaken about where the video was shot (it was Guatemala). But by then his message had metastasized, spreading far beyond the 153,000 people who follow the north Florida congressman’s tweets.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter retweeted it to her 2 million followers. So did Sarah Carter, a journalist who’s a frequent guest on Fox News.

Jack Posobiec – a correspondent for conservative cable news television channel One America News Network – got more specific, implying Soros was renting RVs for the migrants.

Posobiec was among the early proponents of “Pizzagate,” a social-media conspiracy that falsely claimed then-candidate Hillary Clinton and other Democrats were running a pedophile sex trafficking ring from the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria. It drew a man with a gun to Comet Pizza, where he intended to rescue the children.

The next day, even more influential voices repeated it.

One was the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., who retweeted Gaetz’s post to his 3.1 million followers. The younger Trump has been actively campaigning for Republicans on television and the campaign trail in the lead up to the midterm elections. A spokesman for Donald Trump Jr. declined to comment.

On Twitter alone, at least 43,000 accounts with a combined 127 million followers carried some message linking Soros to the caravan over those two days; most fanning the conspiracy, a few seeking to knock it down.

On Reddit, where users share and comment on news and memes, the lie exploded. Five posts in The_Donald subreddit tied Soros to the caravan. Within a week, there would be 10 times more. The_Donald has 675,000 members.

Ten days after the caravan began in Honduras, police started intercepting what appeared to be pipe bombs – PVC tubes packed with what the FBI later called “energetic material,” wrapped with tape and attached to a clock – that had been sent to Soros and other prominent critics of President Trump.

By the time police found the first of those bombs in Soros’ mailbox in Westchester County, New York, the lie about his involvement with the caravan had been posted by 20,000 more users on Twitter – to a combined audience of 117 million – and more weighed in on Facebook, Reddit and other sites.

It was like a runaway train. Unstoppable.

Another member of Congress, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said in a Fox News interview that he couldn't “help but think that Democrats, perhaps Soros and others, may be funding this thinking it will help them.”

By then, the lie also was at an inflection point. Online, the biggest voices were those debunking it. The day before the bomb was found at Soros’ house, the most prominent people mentioning the theory on Twitter had no longer been conservative commentators but instead New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Chelsea Clinton.

But researchers say repetition is repetition. Even exposing a lie plays a central role in mutating fantasy into fact, or at least a matter of debate. Here, news coverage – including this story – play a significant role.

“The choices reporters and editors make about what to cover and how to cover it play a key part in regulating the amount of oxygen supplied to the falsehoods, antagonisms, and manipulations that threaten to overrun the contemporary media ecosystem,” Syracuse University professor Whitney Phillips wrote in a paper this year on disinformation.

Attention alone can lend credence to the very information critics mean to undermine.

By Oct. 22, posts debunking the theory also emerged. One from Arizona Christian conservative Joshua Feuerstein was among Facebook’s most-viewed videos pushing the Soros-caravan connection. Feuerstein is best known for characterizing Starbucks’ shift to generic red holiday cups as a war on Christmas.

His video purported to show Honduran migrants on a truck. Accompanying text popularized a direct connection not just to Soros, but to the midterms: “They are not coming on foot as CNN #FakeNews says! George Soros is paying for them to show up at the border by mid term elections!”

The video and text drew 137,000 views.

Exactly how far the lie linking Soros to the migrant caravan has traveled is impossible to measure in full. Messages on 4chan and other sites where conspiracies germinate disappear quickly. Gab – a social media site that attracted right-wing figures banished from more mainstream platforms – itself was on the verge of disappearing this week. Even on mainstream sites like Facebook and Instagram, many messages are private.

Still, by the morning of Oct. 27, it had spread to hundreds of millions of users on mainstream social media, and found its way to many more on cable news.

That morning, federal prosecutors allege that trucker Robert Bowers stormed into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and shot 11 worshipers to death. The authorities have offered few details about what might have motivated him to attack, but online Bowers left his own trail of grievance and conspiracy.

Using the handle OneDingo on Twitter, Bowers shared anti-Jewish content and criticized President Trump. Since January, he was a regular on Gab, too, where his bio read: “Jews are the children of Satan.” The image on his Gab account referred to a white supremacist meme. His last message read: “Screw your optics, I'm going in.”

And by the next day, he did. 

In the aftermath, as the news media rushed to cover the killings and to explain the internet conspiracies that might have precipitated such a massacre – the lie spread anew.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2018/10/31/george-soros-and-migrant-caravan-how-lie-multiplied-online/1824633002/

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Note to a few: Threat of gang violence and poverty doesn’t qualify a person for asylum....

[TitanTiger 20,482]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Note to a few: Threat of gang violence and poverty doesn’t qualify a person for asylum....

The qualifications are as follows:

A person can qualify for asylum if he or she has:

A reasonable fear

Of future persecution

On account of

Race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group

I believe they may have a case on the last basis, their social group being "not allied with the gang."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The qualifications are as follows:

A person can qualify for asylum if he or she has:

A reasonable fear

Of future persecution

On account of

Race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or membership in a social group

I believe they may have a case on the last basis, their social group being "not allied with the gang."

Actually, no. It’s not that simple unfortunately. This is exactly the type of work I do. The government must be the agent of the persecution. The applicant must also demonstrate that they, individually, have been targeted. The most difficult showing is “membership in a particular social group.” Namely because there’s no hard-line definition. When I am arguing the definition, my briefs are saturated with quotes from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Their decisions shed some light, but it’s still ambiguous.

A perfect example of a PSG are Gulenists from Turkey, who have deliberately been targeted for the alleged coup that took place in 2016. President Erdogan’s regime is the agent of their persecution. Many Turkish Gulenists have viable claims for asylum in the US.

While gang violence may be grounds for other forms of relief, it alone is not enough for asylum.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Why the facepalm ICHY? I am not wrong. Gang violence isn’t enough for an asylum claim. Look at the I-589 application for yourself.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Actually, no. It’s not that simple. This is exactly the type of work I do. The government must be the agent of the persecution. The applicant must also demonstrate that they, individually, have been targeted.

While gang violence may be grounds for other forms of relief, it alone is not enough for asylum.

Then you probably need to inform the US Government that their websites posting the qualifications are woefully inaccurate:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

The application form is similarly inaccurate, given that no where does it specify that the persecution must be an agent of the government and questions such as these are asked instead:

 

Quote

 

A. Have you, your family, or close friends or colleagues ever experienced harm or mistreatment or threats in the past by anyone? No Yes

If "Yes," explain in detail:
1. What happened;
2. When the harm or mistreatment or threats occurred;
3. Who caused the harm or mistreatment or threats; and
4. Why you believe the harm or mistreatment or threats occurred.

 

4. Are you afraid of being subjected to torture in your home country or any other country to which you may be returned? No Yes

If "Yes," explain why you are afraid and describe the nature of torture you fear, by whom, and why it would be inflicted.

 

 

 

Also, various experts and attorneys who focus on immigration and asylum law disagree with you.  This was the best summation I found"

 

Quote

 

Does the Persecution Need to Have Come From the Government?

No, the persecution does not only need to come from your country’s government or other authorities (such as police or security forces). Refugee law also recognizes persecution by groups that the government is unable to control, such as guerrillas, warring tribes or clans, paramilitary group, or organized vigilantes. Again, however, the persecution must have some political or social basis—a member of a criminal network who comes after you just because you haven’t paid him off is not persecuting you according to refugee law.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/who-eligible-asylum-refugee-protection.html

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then you probably need to inform the US Government that their websites posting the qualifications are woefully inaccurate:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

The application form is similarly inaccurate, given that no where does it specify that the persecution must be an agent of the government and questions such as these are asked instead:

 

 

 

Also, various experts and attorneys who focus on immigration and asylum law disagree with you.  This was the best summation I found"

 

 

That summation is about refugee law and grounds for applying for withholding of removal and applying for same under the convention against torture act, not asylum law.

The application is not inconsistent. The I-589 allows a person to simultaneously apply for withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture act also. That’s what those first questions are aimed at.

Also, the narrative questions give the applicant the opportunity to demonstrate their government’s role for asylum purposes. Thus, multiple purposes are served.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That summation is about refugee law and grounds for applying for withholding of removal and applying for same under the convention against torture act, not asylum law.

The application is not inconsistent. The I-589 allows a person to simultaneously apply for withholding of removal and relief under the convention against torture act also. That’s what those first questions are aimed at.

No, it isn't. It literally links to the I-589 and another article on applying for asylum. 

But also, this distinction between a refugee and a person seeking asylum is a distinction without a meaningful difference, at least in this context:

Quote

 

Asylum status and refugee status are closely related. They differ only in the place where a person asks for the status asylum is asked for in the United States; refugee status is asked for outside of the United States. However, all people who are granted asylum must meet the definition of a refugee.

https://www.immihelp.com/gc/asylum.html

 

 

 

I think the part you're getting hung up on is that while government involvement is one of the requirements, there is a caveat:

Quote

 

Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.^[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.

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

 

And honestly, when you look at the criminal and gang violence in places like Honduras, no credible argument can be made that the Honduran government has any ability to control these actors.  The violence rate in Honduras makes the worse weekend in Chicago look like a gated community in Mountain Brook by comparison.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it isn't. It literally links to the I-589 and another article on applying for asylum.

It literally says "Refugee Law." That is not asylum law. 

23 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I think the part you're getting hung up on is that while government involvement is one of the requirements, there is a caveat:

If the government is unwilling or unable to protect the person from individualized persecution, the government is still an "agent," legally speaking. A major key in any Asylum application is to show that Government's role, in some aspect. Filling out the application is only just the beginning. It is always followed by a supplemental filing, laying out evidence, a brief, and (DRUMROLL.....) an interview with a USCIS officer. That's ultimately when the rubber meets the role. You can five-star lock it that the applicant must demonstrate the Government's role. Again, persecution endured by Gulenists provides a perfect example. 

I am not getting hung up on anything, with all due respect. I am telling you that the basis for asylum cannot just be gang violence. The media is wrong. I literally do this type of work. My intention is not to argue with you, but to merely provide you with a better idea of "asylum." It's a legal term, as is "refugee" and it is important to keep the two distinct from one another. It is important for numerous reasons. Namely there are mandatory bars that apply to one group, but not the other. For example, anyone who has provided "material support" to the persecutor may be barred from asylum. "Material support" is loosely defined. Even cooking a meal for the actor can qualify. Also, the legal processes are much different. The time associated with submitting the filing also vary. 

We represent people from Honduras in Asylum proceedings. I promise you I am not just speaking from thin air. 

Is it of any interest to you how we lay out the framework for Asylum when are arguing before a USCIS officer? I am happy to explain if you are interested. Again, my intention is not to argue with you, but to provide clarity and insight. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It literally says "Refugee Law." That is not asylum law. 

If the government is unwilling or unable to protect the person from individualized persecution, the government is still an "agent," legally speaking. A major key in any Asylum application is to show that Government's role, in some aspect. Filling out the application is only just the beginning. It is always followed by a supplemental filing, laying out evidence, a brief, and (DRUMROLL.....) an interview with a USCIS officer. That's ultimately when the rubber meets the role. You can five-star lock it that the applicant must demonstrate the Government's role. Again, persecution endured by Gulenists provides a perfect example. 

I am not getting hung up on anything, with all due respect. I am telling you that the basis for asylum cannot just be gang violence. The media is wrong. I literally do this type of work. My intention is not to argue with you, but to merely provide you with a better idea of "asylum." It's a legal term, as is "refugee" and it is important to keep the two distinct from one another. It is important for numerous reasons. Namely there are mandatory bars that apply to one group, but not the other. For example, anyone who has provided "material support" to the group may be barred from asylum. "Material support" is loosely defined. Even cooking a meal for the actor can qualify. Also, the legal processes are much different. The time associated with submitting the filing also vary. 

We represent people from Honduras in Asylum proceedings. I promise you I am not just speaking from thin air. 

Is it of any interest to you how we lay out the framework for Asylum when are arguing before a USCIS officer? I am happy to explain if you are interested. Again, my intention is not to argue with you, but to provide clarity and insight. 

Well, with all due respect, I've yet to find a single site, application, article, explanation or any other thing that backs your contention.  You said the persecution must come from the government ("the government must be the agent").  Now if you wish to say that a condition where the government can't control a third party and prevent them from persecuting people in the country makes them an agent - that may well be true in the legalities of these proceedings, but that's not what your statement implied on its face.  You were arguing that gang violence isn't a qualification for asylum.  But clearly it can be.  If the said violence is pervasive (you can't move to another town to escape it for instance), and your social group is being targeted, and the government cannot stop these gangs from doing this, you most certainly can qualify for asylum for gang violence.  Your declaration was far too broad.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, with all due respect, I've yet to find a single site, application, article, explanation or any other thing that backs your contention.  You said the persecution must come from the government ("the government must be the agent").  Now if you wish to say that a condition where the government can't control a third party and prevent them from persecuting people in the country makes them an agent - that may well be true in the legalities of these proceedings, but that's not what your statement implied on its face.  You were arguing that gang violence isn't a qualification for asylum.  But clearly it can be.  If the said violence is pervasive (you can't move to another town to escape it for instance), and your social group is being targeted, and the government cannot stop these gangs from doing this, you most certainly can qualify for asylum for gang violence.  Your declaration was far too broad.

First off, you have to establish that these people belong to a "particular social group." That they are not in gangs does not make them a PSG.

My declaration is not too broad. I stated nothing untrue. Perhaps I should have told you what I meant by "agent." I took for granted that you are interpreting my words as a layperson, not a legal reader. To say that gang violence is a qualification for Asylum is error, immensely misleading at minimum - in the sense that this caravan is coming from a region ripe with gang violence, so they therefore can likely be granted asylum on that basis. It is much more than that. 

 I am happy to provide authority for you, real authority. To be eligible for asylum, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she is outside of his/her home country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of such on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a PSG. (like you referenced). The Fifth Circuit, for example, requires applicants who are members of a particular social group to demonstrate social visibility and particularity. see Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting In re A-M-E- & J-G-U-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, 69 (BIA 2007) (emphasis added). Social visibility/distinction does not equate to "visible to the eye." Instead, it means that the society at issue distinguishes individuals who possess the trait from those who do not possess the trait. 

"When considered by the BIA or appellate courts in light of how the INA’s definition of refugee is construed, claims to asylum based on gang-related violence frequently (although not inevitably) fail. In some cases, this is because the harm experienced or feared by the alien is seen not as persecution, but as generalized lawlessness or criminal activity. In other cases, persecution has been found to be lacking because governmental ineffectiveness in controlling the gangs is distinguished from inability or unwillingness to control them. In yet other cases, any persecution that is found is seen as lacking the requisite connection to a protected ground, and instead arising from activities “typical” to gangs, such as extortion and recruitment of new members. The particular social group articulated by the alien (e.g., former gang members, recruits) may also been seen as lacking a “common, immutable characteristic,” social visibility (now, social distinction), or particularity." - Kate M. Manuel, Congressional Research Service, Asylum and Gang Violence: Legal Overview 2014.  

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Point of fact, this stringent interpretation is much more recent.  It's something Jeff Sessions changed the guidance on just earlier this year.  Prior to that, the guidance had been that gang and domestic violence back home was clearly grounds for asylum.  And also, it isn't clear that Sessions' guidance will stand as the UN has pointed out:

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees had urged Sessions against changing the asylum rules. It warned that such action would violate international agreements the U.S. has entered into concerning refugees and would subject victims to being returned to situations where their lives are in danger. The American Bar Assn. warned that ending the asylum eligibility for victims of domestic violence “would further victimize those most in need of protection.”

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Nope. Overwhelming authority dispels the idea that the presence gang violence is clear grounds for Asylum. Now, persecution perpetuated by gangs in Central America against studious young Catholics might provide strong grounds for Asylum. The applicant must always prove eligibility under the INA, first and foremost.

[augolf1716 21,140]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Why the facepalm ICHY? I am not wrong. Gang violence isn’t enough for an asylum claim. Look at the I-589 application for yourself.

Think of it as a batch of courage

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

6 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Nope. Overwhelming authority dispels the idea that the presence gang violence is clear grounds for Asylum. Now, persecution perpetuated by gangs in Central America against studious young Catholics might provide strong grounds for Asylum. The applicant must always prove eligibility under the INA, first and foremost.

NOLA W--TITAN L

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/1/2018 at 10:26 PM, SaltyTiger said:

 

reads like some reporter wanted to print a story about President Trump "enabling Soros"

  Sorry, but I don't get your point.

[homersapien 11,373]

I think the idea that Soros or anyone else on the Democratic side would fund/organize this.

I seems far more likely to me that it was funded by Trump/Republicans to use for fear mongering before the election. 

[homersapien 11,373]

On 11/2/2018 at 9:21 PM, Proud Tiger said:

NOLA W--TITAN L

There's a good marker for your Christian compassion.  What a jerk.