,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So, people claiming they are in mortal danger in their home countries should... all converge on the same extremely public location in their home countries? Will this be called the “I Don’t Understand What Asylum Means Act of 2019”?
“No, I’m sorry, we can’t accept your domestic abuse report unless you call it in from your home phone...”
I guess this makes the review process faster. “Look, if your own government really WERE trying to kill you, you’d have been murdered at the checkpoint a block from the embassy like all those other saps. APPLICATION DENIED.”
DHS reports the U.S. processed 31,000 “affirmative” asylum applications from citizens of 3 Central American countries in 2017. Most were minors. Will we be resourcing the embassies to handle that many applicants? Do they get to stay in the embassy pending approval or rejection? 
(“Affirmative” meaning “people presenting themselves at the border to ask for asylum” —that’s not counting “defensive” claims made by aliens facing deportation, of which there are almost as many.)
Anyway, as @DLind points out, this is all terminologically bizarre. We already have a process for people applying for protection from outside the U.S.: we call those people “refugees.” The DEFINITION of asylum is that you get here, and then ask for it.
So anyone who says “people should apply for asylum from outside the U.S.” either just doesn’t understand what words mean, or (more likely) wants to reject the entire concept of “asylum” but pretend they’re not doing that.
I suppose the silver lining is that these people are still a bit ashamed to *openly* repudiate a human right recognized under international law, in defiance of our treaty obligations. But it’s a pretty thin lining. I doubt it’d stand up to a brisk wind.
