According to the Los Angeles Times, the union that represents U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees is criticizing the Biden administration’s anemic attempts to stem the flow of asylum-seekers across America’s border with Mexico.

Under Biden’s plan, illegal aliens who failed to request protection from countries they passed through on the way to the U.S. would be ineligible to seek asylum here. This isn’t a particularly radical move. Rather, it’s just Team Biden revisiting the long-established “first country of asylum,” “first safe country,” or “first country of refuge” concept, which has been a part of asylum law for decades.

It’s based on the recognized reality that if migrants are in genuine need of protection, they’ll seek it in the closest place where they won’t be persecuted, not in the place where they can obtain the highest standard of living. Nevertheless, the Times article quotes attorneys for the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) asserting that proposed new regulations would “‘violate asylum officers’ oath to carry out the immigration laws set out by Congress and ‘could make them complicit in violations of U.S. and international law.’”

Asylum Officers made similar claims during the Trump administration and they are just as spurious now as they were back then. Let’s take a look at U.S. law first: It is important to note that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, nor any other domestic statute, requires the United States to grant asylum to anyone at all. In fact, even people who are clearly subject to persecution in their home countries may be denied asylum if they cannot establish that they merit a favorable exercise of the Immigration Court’s discretion to grant relief.

Ultimately, the decision whether or not to protect a particular asylum-seeker is one that the United States is entitled to make based entirely on its own public safety, national security and foreign affairs interests. And American courts have regularly affirmed this fact in opinions ranging from Matter of Salim in 1982 to Patpanathan v. Attorney General decided in 2014.

Moreover, Congress intentionally structured asylum as a discretionary form of relief in order to protect American sovereignty. As the Supreme Court stated in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, “That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence. If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power.”

The mere fact that an alien claims to be subject to persecution at the hands of his own government does not abrogate American sovereignty and obligate the U.S. to confer any particular immigration status upon him/her. Simply put, Asylum Officers’ hysterical claim that a safe third country policy will violate their oath and make them complicit in violations of U.S. law simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

But what of international law? The proposition that Asylum Officers will be in violation of international law if they refuse to grant protection to aliens who have transited multiple countries on the way to the U.S. is beyond disingenuous; it is an outright lie. To begin with, the term “international law” refers to the body of rules which govern relations between nation states.

Thus, in the event that an international tribunal ever reviewed a case involving an American denial of asylum, the party subject to sanction would be the government of the United States, not any particular asylum officer. However, that isn’t likely to happen. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines political asylum for international law purposes. The U.S. is a signatory to this treaty. And, as the International Justice Resource Center notes, “The 1951 Convention does not define how States parties are to determine whether an individual meets the definition of a refugee. Instead, the establishment of asylum proceedings and refugee status determinations are left to each State party to develop.”

In other words, pursuant to its treaty obligations, the U.S. must have a system in place for adjudicating asylum claims, but it is free to determine to whom it wishes to grant protection and under what circumstances it wishes to do so. Despite the anti-borders contingent’s claims to the contrary, America has a comprehensive and generous asylum system. As such, the Asylum Officers’ claims about international law don’t stand up to close examination either.

So, what are the AFGE and its asylum corps members really complaining about? Apparently, they’re under the mistaken impression that the primary function of an Asylum Officer is to secure access to the United States for foreign nationals. But that just isn’t the case. In reality, Asylum Officers have two primary jobs: 1) to vet asylum applicants and make sure they are not a threat to national security or public safety; and 2) to ensure that U.S. immigration law is applied correctly and fairly.

It’s high time that someone pointed out that they can’t do either if they have no idea what the law – domestic or international – really requires.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Asylum officers are deliberately misleading the public or don’t understand the laws they apply appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

If authorities had no reasonable justification for pulling you over, you could bring a motion to suppress. This can result in the case being thrown out. You will also need the help and guidance of an experienced DUI lawyer to help you achieve a favorable outcome.

During a DUI stop, you will be asked if you have been drinking. Typically, most would give an underestimation of what they have drank. Once police get confirmation that you have been drinking, they will often investigate further.

Also, if authorities have reason to believe there is incriminating evidence inside your vehicle, they can search it even if they don’t have a warrant. Generally, they can also look inside your vehicle if you permit them to do so.

Officers who suspect you are driving under the influence will often confirm their suspicions through roadside tests. Some tests include preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) tests and field sobriety tests (FSTs).

All 50 states have “implied consent” laws. This requires that you submit to chemical testing if you have been lawfully arrested for DUI. The test is done to measure the amount of alcohol or drugs that are in your system.

If you refuse the testing, you will likely face consequences that include fines, license suspension, and installation of an ignition interlock device (IID). In other states, refusing the testing can result in a separate criminal conviction.

If authorities determine probable cause to arrest you, you will be cuffed and taken to the police station or local jail. Typically, your driver’s license will also be taken. Check the infographic below to know what else to expect during a DUI arrest.

About the Author

Michelle White is currently the Content Marketing Strategist for Arizona DUI Team. Aside from spreading awareness on DUI and vehicular-related offenses, she enjoys reading and hiking with her family and friends.

The post What Happens During A DUI Arrest appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

NEW YORK (AP) — More than half a century since they were modernized, hate crime laws in the U.S. are inconsistent and provide incomplete methods for addressing bias-motivated violence, according to a new report by advocates for better protections.

The report, first shared with The Associated Press ahead of its Wednesday release, is a comprehensive national review of hate crime laws that shows gaps and variances in the laws. Due to the complexity of hate violence, certain statutes meant to protect racial minorities and marginalized groups are less effective, as a consequence of bias in the criminal justice system, the report says.

The existing laws can even discourage hate crime victims from coming forward, advocates say in the report, which also cites widespread flaws in the collection and reporting of data.

“We really think this is the first report to bring together a state-by-state analysis along so many dimensions … with a focus on racial justice and criminal justice reform,” said Naomi Goldberg, LGBTQ program director for the Movement Advancement Project, which authored the report in partnership with over 15 national civil rights groups.

The coalition of civil rights organizations includes Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Goldberg described it as an unprecedented collaboration in the advocacy space.

The report includes a foreword by Judy Shepard, president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation, named for her son whose murder in 1998 led to LGBTQ protection in the federal legislation.

“Although we know that hate crime laws are important and have been successful in holding offenders accountable, we also know that they can and should be more impactful,” Shepard wrote in the foreword.

The report’s release comes after a more-than-yearlong focus on COVID-era hate violence directed at Asian Americans and Asian immigrants, and ahead of the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, which saw an uptick in anti-Muslim and anti-Sikh attacks.

On Tuesday, a man accused of killing eight people, mostly women of Asian descent, at Atlanta-area massage businesses pleaded guilty to murder in four of the killings. The man received a sentence of life imprisonment. A prosecutor on the case has not linked a hate motivation to the killings.

The FBI said the U.S. reached a 10-year high in reported hate crimes in 2019. Earlier this year, the SPLC said the number of active hate groups in the U.S. declined as far-right extremists migrated further to online networks that are harder to track.

The majority of all U.S. hate crimes are committed by white people, according to available data, and the majority of all hate crimes are motivated by racial or ethnic bias. But data also show that hate crimes reported by state law enforcement to the FBI disproportionately list Black Americans as the perpetrators.

According to the report, in at least 13 states, law enforcement-recorded hate crimes listed Black offenders at a rate roughly 1.6 to 3.6 times greater than the size of the state’s Black population.

“These repeated disparities … show that — despite the fact that people of color are far more likely to be the victims of hate violence — the instances of hate violence that are actually documented by police … are disproportionately those alleged to have been committed by Black people,” the report states.

As racist attacks on Asian Americans and Asian immigrants gained widespread attention in recent months, so did a false perception that Black Americans were the main culprits of such attacks.

“We don’t have a true and accurate understanding of what anti-Asian hate during the pandemic has looked like,” said Marita Etcubañez, senior director for strategic initiatives at Asian Americans Advancing Justice – AAJC in Washington D.C.

“But we do know that these commonly discussed perceptions that the perpetrators of anti-Asian hate are mainly Black or African American are not accurate,” she said.

Etcubañez added that a lack of accurate hate crime statistics is what inspired passage of the Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act, as part of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act. Named for Khalid Jabara and Heather Heyer, whose hate-motivated killings were prosecuted as hate crimes but not counted in hate statistics, the legislation aims to improve hate crime data collection by law enforcement.

The report on hate crime laws also highlights a growing politicization of such legislation. Following the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement and street confrontations between protesters and police in the last several years, conservative lawmakers in a handful of states have either changed or attempted to change hate crime laws by adding police officers as a protected category.

“I think that’s a terrible, terrible approach,” said SPLC president and CEO Margaret Huang.

“Those laws that are trying to include law enforcement in the category of hate crimes are actually taking away from the definition of hate crimes and the focus on how we prevent these things,” she said.

The nation’s earliest protections against hate-motivated violence were passed after the Civil War, amid a rise in white supremacist violence against formerly enslaved Africans. Modernization of federal hate crime legislation happened in 1968, and has since expanded to 46 states, D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Arkansas, South Carolina and Wyoming are the only states without hate crime statutes.

In the report, advocates say current hate crime laws can be improved by shifting the focus away from strictly criminal punishment for violation of the statutes to allowing for remedies in civil court. They also call for investment in the social safety net to help reduce poverty and vulnerability caused by systemic racism.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Report: Hate crime laws lack uniformity across the US appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.