Fear mongering about asylum seeking that tries to salvage your bullshit about the usage of CBP One as a causative factor of the spike at the border by vaguely pointing at the concept of 'asylum fraud', implicitly grossly exaggerating its prevalence.
The claim of "a lot of asylum fraud" is the result of misrepresnting
rejected asylum claims (anywhere from 20%-50%) with asylum
fraud.
For context: A 2015 Government Accountability Office report found that between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, asylum claims terminated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services because of fraud fell
from 103 to 34. For comparison, the agency granted more than
76,000 asylum claims during that time.
Claims that "there is a lot of asylum fraud" are unsubstantiated by available data, and often rest on the mistaken assumption that the overall rate of
rejections is indicative of the rate of fraud.
Once again, nobody gives a shit that
you think what you said "makes perfect logical sense".
We are not talking about some hypothetical, some unknown that we have to suss out, nor are we talking about something up for debate. We are talking about
what the law of the land is.
And you have been told.
You specifically asked for and have been shown the case law supporting it. And you are still dismissing it out of hand explicitly because it doesn't match your
presumption, and even seem to be going
out of your way to misunderstand what you're told.
Since it feels like I have to repeat myself:
You keep responding as though I claimed "ICE detainers are inherently unconstitutional."
I did not.
What I said is that ICE detainers alone are often insufficient legal basis to continue holding someone after lawful state/local custody ends.
That distinction matters.
An ICE detainer is a request from ICE asking a local jail to continue holding someone so ICE can assume custody. Courts have repeatedly ruled that if a jail holds someone past their lawful release time solely because of that request, without independent probable cause or a judicial warrant, that can violate the Fourth Amendment.
This is not a fringe claim. It is established case law.
Which ties back to what I was telling you pages ago:
what is presented as "not honoring ICE detainers is - as I already said but you evidently failed to read - declining to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law).
So once again: You are wrong. That is not a negotiable point. You can either accept that like an adult and move on, or you can continue to go "nuh-uh" like a petulant child.
