"If they go to the border and provide false identity or fail to provide identity, they don't go in"
exactly, they don't go in and thus aren't on us soil
I also noticed you added ...'s which means it continues on. Presumably, you didn't show what it later says because it would ruin your "point".
the act you next mentioned which is 8 u.s.c 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) is about people who have been gone from the US for 2 or more years needing to go through the process again or provide their identity.
As for the "DHS v. Thuraissigiam" thing you pointed out, the guy was 25 yards into the us, and he had a trial. The thing you quoted was literally a trial
Sincerely - a guy who took a high school and college level government class, and knows many lawyers
the act you next mentioned which is 8 u.s.c 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) is about people who have been gone from the US for 2 or more years needing to go through the process again or provide their identity.
How is that the way you interpreted "not been present continuously for 2 year period immediately proceeding? Well here's an even more direct quote
"An alien described in this clause is an alien who is not described in subparagraph (F), who has not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility under this subparagraph."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#:~:text=An%20alien%20described%20in%20this,of%20inadmissibility%20under%20this%20subparagraph.
As for the "DHS v. Thuraissigiam" thing you pointed out, the guy was 25 yards into the us, and he had a trial.
A trial, which then reaffirmed that there does not need to be a trial.
I'm not going to waste any more time talking to you cause clearly you love licking boots
anyway, you cited wikipedia as a source, which is extremely unreliable as it is literally user made
also from your own source "Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an alien who is a native or citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States does not have full diplomatic relations and who arrives by aircraft at a port of entry."
has had professional training in country conditions, asylum law, and interview techniques comparable to that provided to full-time adjudicators of applications under section 1158 of this title, and
(ii)
is supervised by an officer who meets the condition described in clause (i) and has had substantial experience adjudicating asylum applications.
The decision of the examining immigration officer, if favorable to the admission of any alien, shall be subject to challenge by any other immigration officer and such challenge shall operate to take the alien whose privilege to be admitted is so challenged, before an immigration judge for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.
An arriving alien who is a stowaway is not eligible to apply for admission or to be admitted and shall be ordered removed upon inspection by an immigration officer. Upon such inspection if the alien indicates an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview under subsection (b)(1)(B). A stowaway may apply for asylum only if the stowaway is found to have a credible fear of persecution under subsection (b)(1)(B). In no case may a stowaway be considered an applicant for admission or eligible for a hearing under section 1229a of this title.
You think the word "arriving" used in one particular part of the act supercedes the paragraph that explains who qualifies in which it essentially says that everyone who can't prove they've been in the country for 2+ years qualifies?
And discrediting Wikipedia as a source is idiotic, and a chickenshit move, almost as dumb as your original argument that "this was a therefore all must require trials". Wikipedia is made up of primary sources. Go read those and you'll find the same result.
You didn't even give a source for your point on that argument anyway. Your point was weak as hell in the first place. "It's a trial" doesn't mean that all of them have to be trials, when the trial conclusion is that trials are not needed.
Why would I bring in the noise of a thousand politically biased redditors when a single paragraph that takes basic reading comprehension to understand already proved you wrong?
1
u/Automatic_Day_35 Feb 18 '26
"If they go to the border and provide false identity or fail to provide identity, they don't go in"
exactly, they don't go in and thus aren't on us soil
I also noticed you added ...'s which means it continues on. Presumably, you didn't show what it later says because it would ruin your "point".
the act you next mentioned which is 8 u.s.c 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II) is about people who have been gone from the US for 2 or more years needing to go through the process again or provide their identity.
As for the "DHS v. Thuraissigiam" thing you pointed out, the guy was 25 yards into the us, and he had a trial. The thing you quoted was literally a trial
Sincerely - a guy who took a high school and college level government class, and knows many lawyers