[W:701]Trump plans to sign executive order curbing birthright citizenship: report

TU Curmudgeon said:

Have you ever considered that

"proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America so that it can be considered by the Legislative Branch of the government of the United States of America and then, if acceptable to the Legislative Branch of the government of the United States of America submitting that amendment to the several states for ratification as outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America"
​

actually qualifies as "doing something"?.

Click to expand...

While it would indeed qualify as doing something, it would be more likely to at least get some attention were a great many to do the same thing at the same time.

TU Curmudgeon said:

True, and then some later court could overturn that predident, rule in exactly the opposite direction, and strike down the "unconstitutional amendment" ab initio (which is legal talk for "right from its start") resulting in major lawsuits arising from "violations of constitutional rights".



Quite right.

Click to expand...

That's what I was saying.

TU Curmudgeon said:

I'm not so sure that the Founding Fathers would go along with "it doesn't matter what has changed in society, you have to do everything in exactly the same manner as you did it in 1780".

Click to expand...

Not at all what I said. Obviously the Founders expected change to occur, by process, as covered in Article V.

Plus Ultra said:

Seems like you confuse "eminent domain" and treaties with Native American "nations". Eminent Domain is the power of a state, municipal, provincial, or national government to take private property for public use only if the government provides fair compensation to the property owner. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a "public use" and mandates payment of "just compensation" to the owner. The Supreme Court has generally deferred to the government on its claims of public use, the "just compensation" is the fair market value, and this can be controversial since land claimed under eminent domain rapidly loses value. Land held by some Native American tribe would presumably not be private property if it was granted or recognized as of the Native American "nation". I'd expect such matters would need to be negotiated and probably depend on the need and purpose of the government's use of the land, what was offered (if anything) for it and specifics relating to the land itself.

Click to expand...

Since the American government is the actual owner of all "Indian Reservations", "just compensation" doesn't enter into the picture at all because no ACTUAL "ownership" is being transferred. All that would happen would be that the federal government would provide some "equivalent" (and the federal government gets to decide what that means) property for the USE of the "relocated" people.

Plus Ultra said:

In the context of a border wall I'd figure the wall's "footprint" would be insignificant and whatever tribe has a reservation along the border would not have corresponding land on both sides of the border rather than just up to the boundary, so the government would just need a thin strip of reservation land along the border for this wall, but they'd also need access to this strip, and I'd expect they already have such arrangements since it is a national border and there already is some sort of barrier along most of the border.

Click to expand...

In real property law there is no such thing as an "insignificant" encroachment. Whole buildings have had to be demolished because they were 1" over the property line.

While there MIGHT be an "arrangement" for the existing facilities, any change would (if the land were privately owned) require a new "arrangement".

Found this article on Wong raising an aspect of it we haven't discussed:

But one of the points the court made illustrating its decision was that if an enemy nation succeeded in occupying any part of the United States, the children of the invading army’s soldiers would not become U.S. citizens.

The most important point in today’s debate (the citizenship of children of illegal aliens) was never ruled on by the Wong Kim Ark decision or any later Supreme Court decision.

There’s a critical point made by the Wong Kim Ark ruling that no one else seems to have appreciated. It’s the legal and Constitutional conclusion that the soldiers of an invading army would obviously be here against the will of the U.S., inherently without permission. They’d be, in fact, the ultimate illegal aliens. And, the court said, their children would not be American citizens.

An invading armed force occupying a part of our country and illegal aliens coming here peacefully, but in violation of the law, are legally analogous. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch for the Supreme Court to conclude that the children of illegal aliens aren’t U.S. citizens. https://spectator.org/birthright-and-the-angry-election/

Click to expand...

TU Curmudgeon said:

There may very well be "5 conservative justices", but there are also NINE justices who actually know what the law is and what the rules for legal/constitutional interpretation are.

On the other hand, if you are content to be governed by a nonumverate of people who are appointed for life, I'm sure that you are well pleased with the thought that those people will feel quite at liberty to ignore the law whenever they feel like it.

Click to expand...

It only takes 5 to win so 4 activist judges cannot stop the original intent of the 14th as being declared law. So I'm comfortable in going with what ever they say the law says.

Why do you think Democrats shat their pants over Kavanagh? Alone he can do nothing. Both you and I know the Constitution says nothing about Roe V Wade. They shat their pants because they knew strict constitutionalist may point out the Constitution does not cover Roe V Wade and the issue should be handled at the State level.

An Trump may get to nominate another one yet.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Since the American government is the actual owner of all "Indian Reservations", "just compensation" doesn't enter into the picture at all because no ACTUAL "ownership" is being transferred. All that would happen would be that the federal government would provide some "equivalent" (and the federal government gets to decide what that means) property for the USE of the "relocated" people.



In real property law there is no such thing as an "insignificant" encroachment. Whole buildings have had to be demolished because they were 1" over the property line.

While there MIGHT be an "arrangement" for the existing facilities, any change would (if the land were privately owned) require a new "arrangement".

Click to expand...

The US government does not own Indian Nations.

From Wiki

As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, American Indian tribes are considered "domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments

Click to expand...

Plus Ultra said:

Found this article on Wong raising an aspect of it we haven't discussed:

Click to expand...

Territory which has been occupied by an invading army is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the former government of that territory.

SLC said:

It only takes 5 to win so 4 activist judges cannot stop the original intent of the 14th as being declared law. So I'm comfortable in going with what ever they say the law says.

Why do you think Democrats shat their pants over Kavanagh? Alone he can do nothing. Both you and I know the Constitution says nothing about Roe V Wade. They shat their pants because they knew strict constitutionalist may point out the Constitution does not cover Roe V Wade and the issue should be handled at the State level.

An Trump may get to nominate another one yet.

Click to expand...

I am quite aware of the fact that some people are very comfortable with the possibility that the actual government of the United States of America should be placed in the hands of nine people who are appointed for life - PROVIDED that those nine people (or, at least, a majority of them) are certified members of "Our Side".

I'm not.

You might want to take a look at the "interesting" demographics (especially education levels) for the partisan split in the American electorate.

SLC said:

The US government does not own Indian Nations.

From Wiki

Click to expand...

You didn't happen to notice that that Worcester v. Georgia didn't actually say what you would like it to say, did you?

Did you notice the "which the territory occupied by them was guaranteed to them by the United States" bit?

Do you know what "guaranteed occupation" means?

If you have a 10 year lease on your house (which gives you "guaranteed occupation"), does that mean that you, or your landlord, OWN the house?

"Wiki" is always a good place to start, but actually reading the source documents is even better.

TU Curmudgeon said:

Territory which has been occupied by an invading army is NOT "under the jurisdiction" of the former government of that territory.

Click to expand...

This is true too, but what is important is how, as the article notes, despite birth in the US, the child of an invading soldier (the ultimate illegal alien) would not be a citizen.

Plus Ultra said:

This is true too, but what is important is how, as the article notes, despite birth in the US, the child of an invading soldier (the ultimate illegal alien) would not be a citizen.

Click to expand...

To be eligible for "birthright" citizenship, a person must be:

1. BORN IN the United States of America
   
   AND
   
2. SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF the United States of America.

You have to have BOTH (which is what the word "and" means) and invaders do NOT have the second.

If you analogize the 14th as

1 + 1 = 2​

then your position analogizes as

1 = 2​

or is that too complex to understand?

To conclude that a member of an invading army is (whilst in territory that is occupied by that invading army) SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF the country invaded would be ludicrous. Members of an invading army are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF their country of origin as they are official agents of that country and acting under the direction of that country's government. [NOTE - The parallelism between the status of an "invading army" and a "diplomat" is striking, but I'm sure that the Founding Fathers didn't feel any need to spell out that "invaders" didn't qualify for citizenship - mostly because none of them were so stupid as to believe that such a position might be advanced by any rational person.]

To draw the parallel that you wish us to draw would be as hilariously funny as if you had asked us to draw the conclusion that the German Army in WWII was SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Russia, and a lot of other countries.

Surely you don't think that the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes, Norwegians, Poles, and Russians controlled the Wehrmacht in WWII.

If you do, then your education has been woefully inadequate.

PS - Yes, I know, "War Crimes". Unfortunately those are NOT "National Offences" they are INTERNATIONAL offences and do NOT arise from the jurisdiction of any one country.

I think the analogy holds; if an invading military is the "ultimate illegal alien" and therefore cannot produce citizens by birthright, neither can 'undocumented aliens'.

Plus Ultra said:

I think the analogy holds; if an invading military is the "ultimate illegal alien" and therefore cannot produce citizens by birthright, neither can 'undocumented aliens'.

Click to expand...

I prefer the term "illegal" aliens as I have many friends who were brought to the U.S. legally, but without any documents from their home country at the end of the Vietnam war.

The technically and legally correct term is "illegal alien", it applies to people in the US who either crossed into the country without going through a controlled "entry point" or lawfully enter, but remain in the country beyond the time allowed. Most illegal aliens are just people who stay beyond the time allowed, they come in legally, they get a visa, they actually are "documented" (have a passport and visa, are recorded by the authorities). Those who cross into the US without presenting a passport and visa, sneaking in at some uncontrolled point or hidden in a vehicle, may actually have a passport or other id, these are more likely criminals.

The issue with Trump's new order is dealing with the asylum applicants who are rejected. In theory, an applicant for asylum is granted refuge as soon as he reaches safety and is safe from persecution, but in this case applicants who presumably escaped persecution in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, having safely entered Mexico, would seek asylum in the US. The US procedure is to return the rejected applicant right there when his application is denied by the agent at the border (as should be the case since the applicant is not fleeing persecution in Mexico). However, the Mexican border authorities have to accept the rejected applicant back, but only if he's a Mexican citizen.

This is not a new problem, Mexico and the US have developed an understanding and worked out arrangements so rejected asylum applicants from third countries who are rejected at the border are allowed back into Mexico, but in this case its a much bigger problem if thousands are rejected all at once.

It's unconstitutional, not worth the paper it's written on. The man thinks he is a dictator.

Plus Ultra said:

I think the analogy holds; if an invading military is the "ultimate illegal alien" and therefore cannot produce citizens by birthright, neither can 'undocumented aliens'.

Click to expand...

You are quite right, especially when you say "IF an invading military is the 'ultimate illegal alien'".

Unfortunately the first part of your postulate is NOT factual.

The "illegal immigrants" that you are primarily concerned with, DO NOT physically oust the established government, they DO NOT establish their own government, and they DO NOT make any claim to be annexing/occupying territory for the benefit of another country.

The "illegal immigrants" that you are primarily concerned with DO acknowledge that they are "under the jurisdiction of" the government of the United States of America once they enter the United States of America (as witnessed by the fact that there is not a single case on record of an "illegal immigrant" challenging the legal right of the government of the United States of America to institute deportation proceedings.

However your fantasy that four or five thousand "illegal immigrants" are going to invade and conquer the United States of America does present some really amusing scenarios (such as one wherein [a mythical] Juan Ivan Chang bin Svenson ben d'Aubergine O'Reiley personally defeats the entire 101st Airborne Division all by himself while armed only with six chapattis and a bottle of Moosehead).

Plus Ultra said:

The technically and legally correct term is "illegal alien", it applies to people in the US who either crossed into the country without going through a controlled "entry point" or lawfully enter, but remain in the country beyond the time allowed. Most illegal aliens are just people who stay beyond the time allowed, they come in legally, they get a visa, they actually are "documented" (have a passport and visa, are recorded by the authorities). Those who cross into the US without presenting a passport and visa, sneaking in at some uncontrolled point or hidden in a vehicle, may actually have a passport or other id, these are more likely criminals.

The issue with Trump's new order is dealing with the asylum applicants who are rejected. In theory, an applicant for asylum is granted refuge as soon as he reaches safety and is safe from persecution, but in this case applicants who presumably escaped persecution in Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, having safely entered Mexico, would seek asylum in the US. The US procedure is to return the rejected applicant right there when his application is denied by the agent at the border (as should be the case since the applicant is not fleeing persecution in Mexico). However, the Mexican border authorities have to accept the rejected applicant back, but only if he's a Mexican citizen.

This is not a new problem, Mexico and the US have developed an understanding and worked out arrangements so rejected asylum applicants from third countries who are rejected at the border are allowed back into Mexico, but in this case its a much bigger problem if thousands are rejected all at once.

Click to expand...

That raises an interesting question of what would happen if the Mexican government changed the "understanding" and adamantly refused to allow the rejected asylum seekers to enter Mexico from the United States of America (where their "hearing" had been held).

Since the people who had crossed Mexico to seek asylum in the United States of America would, presumably, not want to stay in Mexico it wouldn't take much of a "wall" erected by the Mexican government to prevent them crossing back out of the United States of America and into Mexico.

The video of American border agency personnel in full "riot/SWAT" gear flailing at the "denied claimants" with police batons in an effort to physically drive them out of the United States of America wouldn't have very good "optics" - would it?

The optics would get even worse if the Mexican government started firing machine guns parallel to the border, but one foot on the Mexican side so that anyone that the American border agency personnel did drive out of the US was immediately shot down by the Mexicans.

TU Curmudgeon said:

You are quite right, especially when you say "IF an invading military is the 'ultimate illegal alien'".

Unfortunately the first part of your postulate is NOT factual.

The "illegal immigrants" that you are primarily concerned with, DO NOT physically oust the established government, they DO NOT establish their own government, and they DO NOT make any claim to be annexing/occupying territory for the benefit of another country.

The "illegal immigrants" that you are primarily concerned with DO acknowledge that they are "under the jurisdiction of" the government of the United States of America once they enter the United States of America (as witnessed by the fact that there is not a single case on record of an "illegal immigrant" challenging the legal right of the government of the United States of America to institute deportation proceedings.

However your fantasy that four or five thousand "illegal immigrants" are going to invade and conquer the United States of America does present some really amusing scenarios (such as one wherein [a mythical] Juan Ivan Chang bin Svenson ben d'Aubergine O'Reiley personally defeats the entire 101st Airborne Division all by himself while armed only with six chapattis and a bottle of Moosehead).

Click to expand...

The argument of any "conquering" is a red herring...That's not the question....The whole argument, that needs to be had IMHO, is one of 'birthright citizenship'.... It has never been hashed out completely, and the congress through legislation has the ability, and duty to address this now that people from other nations are challenging our ability to decide who comes, and who doesn't legally....

Now, they have some time to do this, but not much as the people challenging this are advancing toward our borders...

TU Curmudgeon said:

That raises an interesting question of what would happen if the Mexican government changed the "understanding" and adamantly refused to allow the rejected asylum seekers to enter Mexico from the United States of America (where their "hearing" had been held).

Since the people who had crossed Mexico to seek asylum in the United States of America would, presumably, not want to stay in Mexico it wouldn't take much of a "wall" erected by the Mexican government to prevent them crossing back out of the United States of America and into Mexico.

The video of American border agency personnel in full "riot/SWAT" gear flailing at the "denied claimants" with police batons in an effort to physically drive them out of the United States of America wouldn't have very good "optics" - would it?

The optics would get even worse if the Mexican government started firing machine guns parallel to the border, but one foot on the Mexican side so that anyone that the American border agency personnel did drive out of the US was immediately shot down by the Mexicans.

Click to expand...

Mexico offered them asylum, education, and jobs....It should have ended right there....I would think something more on the sort of the UN having to provide troops, and camps for these people to stay while they could figure out how to address their home countries so they can go home.

j-mac said:

The argument of any "conquering" is a red herring...That's not the question....The whole argument, that needs to be had IMHO, is one of 'birthright citizenship'.... It has never been hashed out completely, and the congress through legislation has the ability, and duty to address this now that people from other nations are challenging our ability to decide who comes, and who doesn't legally....

Now, they have some time to do this, but not much as the people challenging this are advancing toward our borders...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately it appears that Congress, absent some pretty impressive mental gymnastics, does NOT have the power to define "birthright citizenship" since the Constitution only gives Congress the power to define the terms and conditions of "naturalization".

If you already have citizenship then you cannot be "naturalized" with any more effect that would occur if you married your current spouse again.

However, you could take some clue from the judicially settled meaning and the use of the term "natural born" in other sections of the constitution and that is highly likely what the courts would do.

j-mac said:

Mexico offered them asylum, education, and jobs....It should have ended right there....I would think something more on the sort of the UN having to provide troops, and camps for these people to stay while they could figure out how to address their home countries so they can go home.

Click to expand...

Although I am (massively) overstating the case, Mexico's offer is analogous to the "Crips" offering "sanctuary" to people trying to get away from the "Bloods".

PS - Often unstated is the underlying assumption that both "refugees" and "asylees" will NOT remain in their country of refuge forever, but will return to their country of origin when it is safe for the to do so.

PPS - One rather interesting potential solution is for the government of a country to declare that, on a temporary basis, a defined area within its boundaries is NO LONGER within its jurisdiction and is, for all legal purposes, a part of the sovereign territory of another nation. I know of one occasion where this was done so as to ensure that the child which was born to a reigning monarch would remain in the line of succession by (legally) being born in the country that the reigning monarch ruled. If you want to do a "Trivia Hunt" you can try and track down when, where, and to whom this relates. If not, you can take my word for it - or not (as you choose).

TU Curmudgeon said:

Unfortunately it appears that Congress, absent some pretty impressive mental gymnastics, does NOT have the power to define "birthright citizenship" since the Constitution only gives Congress the power to define the terms and conditions of "naturalization".

If you already have citizenship then you cannot be "naturalized" with any more effect that would occur if you married your current spouse again.

However, you could take some clue from the judicially settled meaning and the use of the term "natural born" in other sections of the constitution and that is highly likely what the courts would do.

Click to expand...

We have to get away from the laziness of letting the court determine what our path is...IMHO, the founders never envisioned that Congress would be so adverse to their duty that we would leave our path to unelected judges....

Further your first paragraph is confusing to me...Could you lay out why you would say that Congress doesn't have the power then in the same paragraph you say that only they can determine the terms and conditions for naturalization...Either they have the power, or they don't....

The 14th amendment, clearly states in section 5

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

So, it is up to congress to legislate...They should do their jobs.

Vadinho said:

It's unconstitutional, not worth the paper it's written on.

Click to expand...

Since a sheet of paper is routinely priced as low as $0.007598 (and often times available for less), that's saying something.

Vadinho said:

The man thinks he is a dictator.

Click to expand...

You will get an argument about that from those who are of the opinion that he thinks he is a god.

j-mac said:

We have to get away from the laziness of letting the court determine what our path is...IMHO, the founders never envisioned that Congress would be so adverse to their duty that we would leave our path to unelected judges....

Further your first paragraph is confusing to me...Could you lay out why you would say that Congress doesn't have the power then in the same paragraph you say that only they can determine the terms and conditions for naturalization...Either they have the power, or they don't....

Click to expand...

Please refer to


and then get back to me when you find the words "birthright citizenship".

j-mac said:

The 14th amendment, clearly states in section 5

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Click to expand...

Indeed it does.

However what it does NOT say is anything along the lines of "and shall also have the power to determine who is, or is not, "born" or to determine what does, or does not, constitute "in" or determine what does, or does not, constitute "the United States of America", or determine who is, or is not, "in the jurisdiction of"".

The reason why it does not contain such wording is that the meaning of the words used in the 14th are clear, precise, and unequivocal.

j-mac said:

So, it is up to congress to legislate...They should do their jobs.

Click to expand...

And what they should NOT do is "legislate beyond their competence".

Your suggestion would allow Congress to define "born" as meaning "specifically, to a married man and his wife who are both White and native speakers of the English language PROVIDED that they were NOT citizens of any other country and have never been outside of the United States of America for longer than two weeks at a time".

You may be OK with that being enabled, I'm not.

Now if you want to propose a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish the same end (not quite so broadly painted I admit), then that's quite all right since the Constitution of the United States of America makes specific provision for that course of action. I might not agree with the CONTENT of the proposed Constitutional Amendment BUT I would NOT disagree with your proposed course of action to secure it.

It's called "The Rule of Law".

TU Curmudgeon said:

That raises an interesting question of what would happen if the Mexican government changed the "understanding" and adamantly refused to allow the rejected asylum seekers to enter Mexico from the United States of America (where their "hearing" had been held).

Since the people who had crossed Mexico to seek asylum in the United States of America would, presumably, not want to stay in Mexico it wouldn't take much of a "wall" erected by the Mexican government to prevent them crossing back out of the United States of America and into Mexico.

The video of American border agency personnel in full "riot/SWAT" gear flailing at the "denied claimants" with police batons in an effort to physically drive them out of the United States of America wouldn't have very good "optics" - would it?

The optics would get even worse if the Mexican government started firing machine guns parallel to the border, but one foot on the Mexican side so that anyone that the American border agency personnel did drive out of the US was immediately shot down by the Mexicans.

Click to expand...

Mexico is derelict in its border enforcement, partly because the authorities are corrupt and incompetent, but also because immigrants fleeing poverty who get to Mexico aren't interested in staying there, they're on their was to the US, these are transients just passing through. Under the applicable international treaties and conventions, immigrants fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution are supposed to be granted asylum as soon as they reach safety. In the case of these migrant caravans of thousands making their way across Mexico, they should have all been granted asylum by Mexico, some (about 1700) accepted the Mexican offer and received additional assistance, some of those are no longer in the caravan.

I'm not sure Trump can restrict granting asylum to those who enter illegally, a clear legal contradiction arises over legislation which recognizes the right to claim asylum anywhere in the US and Trump's proposal to require this only be done at a legal entry point. Another contradiction is that an applicant for asylum can be rejected for criminal activity, but crossing into the US without going through a legal entry point is a crime. Finally there's the problem with the number of refugee visas annually allocated, what happens to a meritorious claimant who exceeds the quota? I suppose they go on a waiting list, but I doubt there are ever unclaimed refugee visas, last year 130,000 Hondurans applied for asylum, but the total number of US refugee visas (for the whole world) was about 55,000.

Plus Ultra said:

Mexico is derelict in its border enforcement, partly because the authorities are corrupt and incompetent, but also because immigrants fleeing poverty who get to Mexico aren't interested in staying there, they're on their was to the US, these are transients just passing through.

Click to expand...

I assume that, if one were to use your definition of "derelict" one would have to conclude that the East Germans (with their walls and practice of machine gunning those attempting to leave the country) would NOT qualify as "derelict".

Plus Ultra said:

Under the applicable international treaties and conventions, immigrants fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution are supposed to be granted asylum as soon as they reach safety.

Click to expand...

Really?

Would you like to produce some evidence on that point? Would you like to produce some evidence as to exactly how "safety" is defined?

I do know that Canada and the US have a "Safe Third Country" treaty under which each accepts that the other is a "safe" country such that they do not accept "refugees" from the other (in most cases). Would you like to provide a link to the parallel US/Mexico treaty?

Plus Ultra said:

In the case of these migrant caravans of thousands making their way across Mexico, they should have all been granted asylum by Mexico ...

Click to expand...

Those who ASKED FOR asylum in Mexico were granted it.

There is no international law which says that a country can FORCE "asylum" on people fleeing from another country.

Plus Ultra said:

I'm not sure Trump can restrict granting asylum to those who enter illegally, a clear legal contradiction arises over legislation which recognizes the right to claim asylum anywhere in the US and Trump's proposal to require this only be done at a legal entry point.

Click to expand...

The odds on that fact having penetrated Mr. Trump's thinking are low. The odds that he is concerned about the fact that his action may be contrary to the laws of the United States of America are even lower. The odds that he knows that, regardless of whether his action is legal, his action will appeal to his "base" are incredibly high.

Plus Ultra said:

Another contradiction is that an applicant for asylum can be rejected for criminal activity, but crossing into the US without going through a legal entry point is a crime.

Click to expand...

To be very specific (and that is what you have to do when dealing with the actual laws), "crossing into the US without going through a legal entry point" is NOT a crime - "entering the US without complying with the legal and procedural requirements", on the other hand, is a crime.

That may seem like an incredibly picky point, but that is what the law is all about.

FYI, the distinction between "crossing" and "entering" is (essentially) the presence or absence of an intention to remain without complying with the legal requirements.

Plus Ultra said:

Finally there's the problem with the number of refugee visas annually allocated, what happens to a meritorious claimant who exceeds the quota?

Click to expand...

That one is easy, they don't get a visa and go back into the pool.

Plus Ultra said:

I suppose they go on a waiting list, ...

Click to expand...

They don't have any priority and face the same competition the next year that they faced in the current one. There is also, if my memory serves, a time limit on how long the application for a visa remains valid (so once the applicant has been in the "application approved (subject to availability of visa)" pool past that time they have to re-apply from scratch.

Plus Ultra said:

... but I doubt there are ever unclaimed refugee visas, last year 130,000 Hondurans applied for asylum, but the total number of US refugee visas (for the whole world) was about 55,000.

Click to expand...

There actually are "unclaimed visas" since that total is actually broken down by country and some countries simply don't have enough applicants to use up the number of visas available for applicants from those countries. The unused visas are pooled and then awarded through the so-called "visa lottery".