Where does it say asylum seekers are protected? What Dirty Hipsters copied and pasted, again, does not say what you claim. The US is not determining if the deportees go to jail or not.
Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Asylum seekers have been granted protections since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
1951 Refugee Convention - Wikisource, the free online library
"Article 31.
1: The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article i, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
"Article 32.
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.
2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.
3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary."
These articles have very transparently been broken.
The US knew exactly where it was sending these people, and it was agreed in a deal with the El Salvador government.
Do you, or do you not, believe that it's right and proper for people to be sent to maximum security prison without any crime being proven or even charged? You said before that a crime needs to be proven in order for someone to be held accountable for it. So do you believe in that due process, or not?
Because I live in the US, and they have better healthcare than both of those countries, and I don't want other countries following their example of poor healthcare for various brain illnesses, the US has better ADHD and mental healthcare than all countries except the other OECD countries, but not in terms of wait times. I asked a question about Ritalin in a China subreddit, and was told not to bring it despite needing it for energy, as I sleep a lot without it. ADHD is not recognized as an illness in China for the most part, meaning if I ever were going to go back to visit my grandmother, who is old, I would need to bring Straterra, and don't even get me started on Russia, a country that won't let you drive with ADHD.
-Yes, I fixed your posts' grammar near 'broad'.
Also have you seen half of the misandrist crap that gets put on signs on billboards. Most people will agree and complain about people judging woman for having for example small breasts but no one complains about dick size slandering of Trump/Musk/Republicans/Likely Asian men which is prevalent on the left and the right. Asian American men deserve an apology from America. More Asian women voted for Trump than Asian Men who voted for Harris. A former asian woman friend of mine won't even turn on CNN when I asked her, and that's centrist.
Where are the marches/movements against Asian women or East Asian women? Everyone rightfully argues against Gen Z men(I am a younger millennial). The democrats, protesters, and liberals + the lefts have their favorites, and it's not us.
On another topic...
Yeah fuck incels, wait what do you mean they are center left (Unless your the 5% of right leaning incels that likes violence). By the way, before anyone attacks me, I am voluntarily celibate. If I had a child, which in theory I could get, given that I rejected many relationships here, and in my hometown in China, there's a high percentage they would have either a brain disorder that causes distorts reality, or ADHD a energy sucker.
The Heritability of ADHD in Children of ADHD Parents: A Post-hoc Analysis of Longitudinal Data - PMC
A growing literature suggests attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a heritable disorder. We evaluated children at risk for ADHD by virtue of having parents with ADHD and compared them with children of parents without ADHD to assess the ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So I am going to tie everything together. Why are asian american women more valued in the US than asian american men, despite being more conservative by both the left and the right? Because women are more valuable than men in this society, by both the left and the right,t just in different ways and in most of the civilized world. If we had 1000 men and 10000 women, we could survive as a society given a birthrate of 2.1 children; reverse that, and we would have problems. Conservatives hate asian men because we aren't white, and liberals hate us because we make too much money to include us in various DEI programs, as it's simpler that way, although many Southeast asians Americans make even less than whites. In the end, it's all about society playing favorites to maintain order and power.
Oh no, lower electricity prices, less electricity use, lower water bills, and lower freshwater usage. The horror.
It's everywhere on TikTok, people harassing people in Ohio over this saying this is what "MAGA deserves".
Good, make fewer Data Centers in my state, make fewer data centers in general.
What we want is for you to stop shouting your mouth off and being the embodiment of the expression "confidently wrong". What we want is for you to have even the smidgen of humility necessary to actually earnestly check your assumptions. What we want is for you to actually do your damn homework. What we want is for you to stop reflexively digging your heels in when you're corrected and childishly asserting that since the correction doesn't make sense to you that it's necessarily ridiculous. What we want is for you to stop being such an insufferable hypocrite who insists that his unevidenced claims cannot be disproven because he believes they're right while insisting that people supplying him with entire semesters' worth of explanation hadn't provided him with anything because he couldn't be bothered to read it and only skimmed what little he did read (often only via the ctrl+f method) to look for any pretext to dismiss it out of hand.
What we want is for you to stop acting like a spoiled brat, and and to instead actually try to hold an adult conversation. And you have consistently demonstrated for years now that you are either incapable or unwilling to do either.
The problem isn't your opinion on Khalil, it's how you reach your conclusions and consistently close yourself off to new data as soon as you reach those conclusions. It's how you lie about your awareness of and familiarity of the topic and then double-down whenever anyone corrects you. It's how you turn any engagement with you into a war of attrition because you'd sooner quibble over the exact meaning of the word "is" than so much as admit that you had been presented with information you were unaware of and needed to do some more reading on the topic.
I personally have literally argued with you for weeks about a paper that you were making false assertions about. I quoted it repeatedly and at length to you, only for you to keep firing back that - because I was telling you that it very obviously didn't make the claims you were attributing to it - I clearly hadn't read it. And then, after you finally realized (again, after weeks of insisting that I couldn't have actually read it) that the paper wasn't even about that the topic you claimed (as I had been telling you), you brushed it off by saying that 'in your defense' you hadn't looked at it in months. You legitimately could not be bothered to crack the damn thing open even while arguing with the people telling you that you were getting its contents wrong. And rather than learning from the experience you just keep on doing it! I cannot stress enough that that is a perfect representation of how you act on these topics!
You cite a paper that you claim proved that there was no relationship between long covid and covid? I point out that the paper says no such thing that but is instead tracking the effectiveness of laypeople's ability to self-diagnose, with labwork indicating that people were bad at self-diagnosing. Your response was to argue for weeks that that can't be the case because you presumed that the labwork would be unable to identify a recent covid infection (despite your initial misinterpretation being wholly predicated on their ability to do just that), leading me to explain the methodology that the same paper - the one you cited - had used, only for you to keep treating it like I was spitballing wild ideas rather than quoting your own source's methodology back to you!
You come in citing something that you read on Twitter or in a youtube video that said that Study X said Y. We present you with the actual study, explain that it said nothing of the sort and quote its results and conclusions back to you, and you hypocritically assert that we must not have actually read it because we're telling you that you misunderstood it! We keep on explaining it, and you keep mindlessly repeating that our explanations can't actually be true because of some quibble over a snippet that your objection makes quite clear that you don't understand. And yet as we continue to explain these topics to you, you just continue to dig your heels in until the people get frustrated with your stonewalling, which you then treat as a victory.
You make a ill-informed declaration about an industry, and the people on these boards who work in that industry explain that what you said is genuine nonsense, and you scoff and say that your claims must be accurate because you half-remember a show (Food Theory, in the case where you were condescending to me about my own field of marketing) making you believe otherwise! We keep explaining, and you just keep reasserting that you must be right because you heard it on such-and-such show!
You come in treating a fringe view as mainstream and "the real science". We explain that the assertion you're parroting does not reflect the data. Then you turn around and insist it has to be what you claim because you believe the self-promoting puffery that your source is the best-of-the-best, and you believe that they believe it! We walk you through the data, explaining what it actually says and how it has been misrepresented. And your response is just to repeat that you heard that this same guy disagreed therefore the claim you're championing has to be the real science, while puffing up their credentials to try and defend your claim through a brazen appeal to perceived authority fallacy. You genuinely do not understand the topic well enough to do anything but argue about the person that you attribute the claim to (as opposed to the merits of the claim itself), and yet you still try and act like you're the resident expert on the topic, clearly believing that your own 'expertise' exceeds those of people who have have academic and professional experience within the field, and who - unlike you - are actively reading up on the subject again and providing the receipts during the same exchange!
Every. Goddamn. Time. You always do this.
You shoot your damn mouth off about topics you hardly have even a perfunctory awareness of, refuse to check your information even after your claims are challenged, and treat your sources (or rather the conclusions you ascribe to them) as sacrosanct, despite frequently ending up reflexively arguing against them when their actual content is quoted back to you! And then, after they've thrown veritable volumes of information at you, while you're pointedly turning your nose up at them and doing little more than repeating your initial assertion, you fucking have the gall to declare that nobody has been able to provide any supporting evidence!
That you're too lazy to read the reams of information you've been given is not the same thing as you not being provided with that information, and it's disgustingly hypocritical of you to make such a claim when you provide far less, consistently demonstrate that you clearly don't understand the contents of what you post, and then demand that we treat your claims about it as the definitive word on the subject.
And after all that...after years of dealing with this from you across so many topics, you think that all we want from you is for you to parrot the Trump administration's "sorry, not sorry" that tries to paint this shit as a simple "administrative error" and non-issue that's hardly worth a second thought, much less redress? Are you for real? You think that's the issue?
He says without even a smidgen of self-awarenes...
You've paid so little attention to the story that you even failed to recognize that Abrego Garcia is the same guy that the Trump administration itself has themselves acknowledged as a wrongful deportation and have been trying to downplay as a simple "Administrative Error". For fuck's sake, the very article you cited goes on to say that the accusation of gang membership has never actually been meaningfully substantiated.
The allegations about his affiliation with MS-13 stem from a 2019 arrest outside a Maryland Home Depot store, where he and others were looking for work. County police asked if he was a gang member and - presuming that he was one - demanded information about other gang members. After explaining that he wasn’t a gang member and had no information, he was turned over to ICE, whom they told that Garcia was a gang member.
ICE argued against Abrego Garcia’s release at a subsequent immigration court hearing because local police had “verified” his gang membership (read: profiled him as such and simply refused to believe that he wasn't in the gang). The evidence they cited was that he was wearing of a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie and that a confidential informant’s claim that Abrego Garcia belonged to MS-13’s “Westerns clique” in Long Island, New York, despite having never lived there. That's it.
The claim that he was found to be a gang member by the court is unequivocally false. It is a misrepresentation of the initial proceedings, in which Ice claimed that he was a verified gang member because he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie and because an confidential informant made what is ultimately a vague and uncorroborated allegation that Garcia was a gang member in Long Island (which once again, was not credible both because of lack of corroborating evidence and because Garcia has never even lived there. For Pete's sake, it's 240 miles away!).
Even at this early stage, the judge was skeptical, but treated the allegation as a given as far as posting bond went. That's pretty standard procedure and literally means nothing more than the fact that due to the severity of the allegation, Garcia would be treated as a flight risk before the trial and therefore would not be allowed to post a financial guarantee that he would appear in court to be released until that court date.
And the above is literally all the evidence that the prosecution presented to claim that Garcia was a gang member. Garcia, in turn, offered sworn testimony, character witnesses, and voluminous evidence that not only was he not a gang member, but that he was also eligible for protection under Federal law. The court found that Garcia was credible, that the testimony for his case was internally and externally consistent, was corroborated by substantial documentation, and appeared free of embellishment. As the court also established that he was at substantial risk of persecution, it further ruled that he had a right not to be deported to El Salvador. The government never tried to appeal the ruling. And Garcia has, as ordered, checked in with immigration consistently since then.
Garcia has been living in the United States since 2011, when he was 16. He has lived here for 14 years, literally almost half his life, and has never been charged with a crime. That in and of itself makes his treatment in recent weeks unequivocally heinous, as imprisonment is a response to criminal action. Which again, he has never even be charged with, much less convicted of! Moreover, the court did not find that he was a gang member (in fact, the reason that was granted protected status was because he and his family had been fleeing gang extortion), they just entertained the assertion during initial proceedings to determine whether or not to let him out on bail. When the case itself came around, the court in fact found the opposite: that there was no credence to the claim that he was a gang member. What Ice and the Trump administration has been doing is repeating the initial accusation and misrepresenting it as the court's verdict.
So again, either do your damn homework - and I mean really do it, rather than just skimming it to look for a pretext that you think validates your extant opinions (which you just did yet again) - or shut the fuck up.
Except you aren't doing that. You are uncritically swallowing the Trump administration and Ice's characterization of the events, declaring that it must reflect the true story without doing any additional research, and then judging the veracity of the news based on how well it aligns with that same characterization.
Which, as noted above, is very much in line with your general approach to information. You find a story, decide that it has to be true, declare anything conflicting with it to be 'obviously' wrong and then insist that anyone who tells you otherwise must not have seen the truth like you have, even as they start pointing to flaw after flaw in the story you're pushing, often very glaring ones at that. Because you aren't evaluating the merit of the claims, you're just championing your preferred one and looking for any pretext to declare that any disagreement with it must be wrong.
Hell, that's seen in you keep on getting the case of Garcia wrong in this very post. You didn't look at the information skeptically (such as checking the court records or filings), you just dismissed the stories that said he was falsely imprisoned, embraced the Trump administration's characterization of it as a simple administrative error or minor injustice purely on technicality, and then found something that you thought said the courts proved he was a gang member (again, not what the records show), and championed that as the true version of events that proved that everyone else was being deceived and that you were clever for championing the Trump party line.
That's not being a skeptic, that's pseudoskepticism, dogmatism that masquerades under a wan pretense of skepticism. You're calling yourself a "skeptic" but all you're doing - and indeed, all you ever seem to do - is cherry picking evidence that conforms to your preexisting belief and dogmatically insisting that it is necessarily true as a matter of principle. And you have been called out on this time and time again over many, many different topics, including but not not limited to topics such as medicine, nutrition, law, and psychology.
You genuinely don't know what you're talking about and have made it more than clear that you can't be bothered to learn. So stop trying to bluff that you do.
Last edited:
The contradiction is from Agema (though you were silly enough to agree with him reciprocally). He thinks I've built a strawman by arguing as though you think they are deporting innocent people on purpose. He categorizes the deportation of non-gang members as errors.
"... US authorities attempting to obstruct anyone examining and correcting potential errors"
You explicitly do not.
" The main point, though, is that this wasn't in error. "
And now I'm getting accused by him of strawmanning you because you and he are not arguing the same thing. It's not about the distinction between "targetting innocent people" and "targeting a group that includes innocent people", I've understood you meant the latter from the start and have argued as such. Agema solidly missed what you've been saying and then whined at me for understanding what he didn't.
That is not true. They followed the rules, yes, but they were not necessarily given permission or legal status. Users of CBP One had scheduled asylum hearings intended to take place at ports of entry. Applying for asylum through CBP One never granted permission to reside on its own, that either happened when your asylum request was granted (with you not allowed in the country until then) or on a very narrow basis if the immigration court decided to grant you humanitarian parole to let you in before your hearing. Most CBP One users did not cross the border until their appointment. You might note, in the case of the gay Venezuelan make-up artist, he was never allowed to reside in the US at any point, he never had a legal status. He was in immigration detention awaiting his hearing because he was not granted humanitarian parole.
Here's the problem. Reagan and Nixon had some pretty Judge Dredd style actions in their administrations. All this does is INCREASE illegal immigration as immigrants no longer want to be tracked if the government is not going to follow its own processes and deport people illegally
Ah, yes. Phoenixmgs showing his ass by not knowing laws. Or history
My own government (and the UK one too) have tried to pulled stupid stunts like this.
Tony Abbot, an old Aussie PM who Trump is modeling his policies off, tried to do this a decade ago. They even shipped them to a third country in a detention centre for processing. 7 thousand people. They are still there a decade later. It turns out that they are very legal immigrants but the Aussie government is still holding them in detention centres. For BILLIONS of dollars a year.
Here's the problem. The right uses the term illegal immigrants. That does not mean that they are actually illegal. It's just a term that the right uses to hate on immigrants. It's right wing propoganda from the 60s.
Now, you CAN leave the UNHCR. It just means that you no longer are a country that can pretend it follows human rights
Instead of broad rather than wide (which, in retrospect, probably should have been broad or "same"), not seeing a grammar change.
I haven't seen that, though I'm not in the US. When it comes to bodyshaming, it's normally about Trump being orange.
It would take a massive, unprecedented change in society for that ratio of men to women to work. And I serious question the idea that women are seen as more valuable than men in society, given how male dominated it is, the lack of interest in female healthcare, the amount of people guilty of crimes against women holding high office etc
The attitudes in the US towards Asian men and Asian women I can't really speak of, though.
In terms of elites viewing people as a resource, women are more valuable. Also, TikTok comment sections and on Reddit where every single time woman's issues are mentioned it universal praise, and whenever men's issues are mentioned it's either pull yourself by your bootstraps, therapy(fun fact my therapist revealed a secret I told about in a subreddit about another state so I despise them), or woman aren't responsible for men, men's clubs are bad because they gatekeep jobs from woman but woman's career clubs are fine, more women vs men college attainment, better relationships, and mental health of women vs men, women being trained better for you know the world vs men due to stupid Baby Boomer, and Gen X beliefs about the world in terms of housework.
And the lack of interest in abortions is only in crackpot US republican states, most coastal states have abortion, and good woman's healthcare, as for woman holding office well maybe if Gen Z woman, Asian female woman(Their own fucking demo), white woman, and Gen Z as a whole would put the fucking TikTok/Instagram/X down and vote their interests vs their feelings we in the US and the world woudn't see this. J-Powell is the best Reserve Chair the US has had in a generation, much better than even Yellen. If he had an equivalent president, it would be like an Obama on the economy with Biden's wisdom on foreign affairs. The guy's a legend, not even Bernie opposes him, even though he was initially seen as a servant of the rich.
Yeah, men vote completely logically, and never do stupid shit on TikTok/Instagram/X, do they? And I love how your argument that healthcare for women is fine is literally "Well, it's good except in the places it isn't." And most coastal states have abortions? Even if that's the case, which I highly doubt considering the overlap between "Deep South" and "Gulf of Mexico coast", congratulations. You have shown that only a bit more than half the states really "count".
ETA: I'm a guy, in my mid-30's. And give some of the dumb shit I did when alone, it's probably a blessing that there wasn't really an Instagram or TikTok when I was in my late teens and early 20's, because I did some fucking dumb shit. There's a reason Jackass exists, and there's also a reason it's all guys.
Jackass isn't going to sent the world into a recession. Gen Z are made up of a lot of morons. I hope I die before I see the first Gen Z president. Half of them worship Tate, and the other half didn't vote.
Edit: I include white women and asian women who voted for Trump in this as well.
Why Gen Z Men Voted for Trump
Gen Z can’t stand inequality. Why so many of its men voted Republican is a lesson in understanding male identity
Gen Z voters backed Trump. CT college students help explain why
Historically, voters younger than 30 have played a crucial role in tight elections, often giving Democrats an edge. However, in this year’s presidential election, President-elect Trump made notable strides with young voters.
www.ctpublic.org
AP VoteCast: How Donald Trump built a winning 2024 coalition
Big shifts with small groups and small shifts with big groups helped return Donald Trump to the White House.
apnews.com
Last post, because I don't really want to get dragged into an argument about how stupid certain groups are.
www.deseret.com
Some key takeaways:
Trump had a 13 point lead in exit polls compared to Harris among male voters, compared to an 8 point lead among women. Yep, those damn stupid women, voting with their feelings, unlike the super logical men.
That said, he was more popular overall with Gen Z, you are right. He only had a 1 point lead with millenials (who people consistently seem to forget are 30-40 years old by now), and was tied with Harris in popularity among Baby Boomers.
Trump also gained supporters compared to previous cycles among moderates, although not enough to overtake Harris.
Harris, meanwhile, actually performed better among black women compared to Biden and Clinton, although she was "only" 23 points ahead among Hispanic women, falling short of the lead by Biden and Clinton. Again, those damn women ruining things for everyone.
Here are the different voting groups who helped Trump win
The presidential election results show a realignment among voters, including Latinos, Black men and Gen Z, according to the exit polls.
www.deseret.com
Some key takeaways:
Trump had a 13 point lead in exit polls compared to Harris among male voters, compared to an 8 point lead among women. Yep, those damn stupid women, voting with their feelings, unlike the super logical men.
That said, he was more popular overall with Gen Z, you are right. He only had a 1 point lead with millenials (who people consistently seem to forget are 30-40 years old by now), and was tied with Harris in popularity among Baby Boomers.
Trump also gained supporters compared to previous cycles among moderates, although not enough to overtake Harris.
Harris, meanwhile, actually performed better among black women compared to Biden and Clinton, although she was "only" 23 points ahead among Hispanic women, falling short of the lead by Biden and Clinton. Again, those damn women ruining things for everyone.
Now do white woman, and asian woman. And millennials are 28+...Last post, because I don't really want to get dragged into an argument about how stupid certain groups are.
Here are the different voting groups who helped Trump win
The presidential election results show a realignment among voters, including Latinos, Black men and Gen Z, according to the exit polls.
Some key takeaways:
Trump had a 13 point lead in exit polls compared to Harris among male voters, compared to an 8 point lead among women. Yep, those damn stupid women, voting with their feelings, unlike the super logical men.
That said, he was more popular overall with Gen Z, you are right. He only had a 1 point lead with millenials (who people consistently seem to forget are 30-40 years old by now), and was tied with Harris in popularity among Baby Boomers.
Trump also gained supporters compared to previous cycles among moderates, although not enough to overtake Harris.
Harris, meanwhile, actually performed better among black women compared to Biden and Clinton, although she was "only" 23 points ahead among Hispanic women, falling short of the lead by Biden and Clinton. Again, those damn women ruining things for everyone.
OK, white women. From the same article:
"White women chose Trump over Biden by 11 percentage points in 2020, but this time around, that lead diminished by 3 percentage points." So, 8 points. LIKE I FUCKING SAID.
As for the Asian American breakdown, I couldn't find one by gender. However, I did find an article breaking down by demographic. According to this article, Asian Americans in general were in favor of one candidate pretty much across the board. Guess what? IT WASN'T TRUMP.
https://www.myasianvoice.com/the-asian-american-vote-in-the-2024-presidential-election. Oh, and while Trump was a minority support by any one group, guess what age group showed the greatest love for Trump? Millennials. The age group for Asian-Americans that showed the least Trump support? Those damned TikTok addicted Gen Z.
I said this before, but you asked, I responded as best as I could. I have no interest in going further to try to prove that this isn't the dumbest generation to ever exist. Just like Millenials didn't ruin everything for Gen X, and Gen X didn't ruin everything for Baby Boomers.
"White women chose Trump over Biden by 11 percentage points in 2020, but this time around, that lead diminished by 3 percentage points." So, 8 points. LIKE I FUCKING SAID.
As for the Asian American breakdown, I couldn't find one by gender. However, I did find an article breaking down by demographic. According to this article, Asian Americans in general were in favor of one candidate pretty much across the board. Guess what? IT WASN'T TRUMP.
https://www.myasianvoice.com/the-asian-american-vote-in-the-2024-presidential-election. Oh, and while Trump was a minority support by any one group, guess what age group showed the greatest love for Trump? Millennials. The age group for Asian-Americans that showed the least Trump support? Those damned TikTok addicted Gen Z.
I said this before, but you asked, I responded as best as I could. I have no interest in going further to try to prove that this isn't the dumbest generation to ever exist. Just like Millenials didn't ruin everything for Gen X, and Gen X didn't ruin everything for Baby Boomers.
More Asian men voted for Harris than Asian women.
this demographic slice wasn't as turned off by genocide and egg prices or whatever, i am doing very serious analysis
This is so, so tenuous, and mostly just comes down to the use of language. Employ a little reading comprehension.
Firstly, Agema is obviously referring to people wrongly identified as gang members, or wrongly identified as deportable, being swept up by ICE agents due to the overly broad criteria. There is no judgement about whether the administration made an error in crafting those criteria to be so indiscriminate, which was my point.
Secondly, Agema's sentence there is referring to 'correcting potential errors' as something the US government didn't do, as an indication that their intentions are poor. Say someone underpays for something and says it was an accident; one might say, "I could believe it was an accident if you'd corrected the potential mistake and paid the difference, but you didn't". That's not agreeing that it was an accident. If anything it's the opposite.
You did strawman me. You say here you always understood I meant the latter, yet earlier you were smugly suggesting I meant the former. And before that you crafted a description of my position that bore no resemblance to it.
I can only assume that you think he and I are contradicting eachother because you yourself have such a flimsy grasp of what people are saying.
That "very narrow basis" isn't narrow at all, and in fact this is how asylum often works; temporary residence is afforded until the case is settled, and asylum seekers (not just asylees) do have a protected status (provided they present themselves as per the '51 Convention, as these ones did).
Last edited: