Ilhan Omar Compares SCOTUS Decision On Restricting Refugees To Court Once Defending Slavery And Segregation


Ilhan Omar has called the recent SCOTUS decision upholding Trump’s policy of requiring illegal immigrants to apply for asylum must first apply in the first country they come to as being morally and legally wrong.

Of course, she says that because she never bothers to check her facts. International law requires that asylum seekers must apply in the first country they come to.

Member countries do not have to require it but congress has never passed such a law allowing country shopping.

From The Daily Caller

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar called last week’s Supreme Court decision that backed restrictions on refugees “morally and legally wrong” and compared it to the court’s historical defense of slavery and segregation.

“I believe that decision is morally and legally wrong. Seeking asylum is a legal right that people have,” she said in her first appearance on CBS News’ “Face the Nation.” And we know that the Supreme Court has been wrong before. They’ve been wrong in the equal but separation doctrine decision, they’ve been wrong in the Dred Scott decision. So what we now have is an opportunity to do as legislators is to make sure we are creating immigration policy that is humane and just.”

Omar also reiterated her comparison of the slave dungeons in Africa to immigration centers at the U.S.-Mexico border. She said slavery involved children being taken from their parents and husbands and wives being separated and “of course we obviously have here a crisis with our family separation … I said that kind of reminded me of what was happening to our borders here.”

From refworld

Section 11
The concept of first country of asylum
Introduction: International Standards
The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an
applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
It should be noted that Member States are not required to apply the concept of first
country of asylum, as Article 26 is a permissive provision.1
However, in accordance with
the APD, those Member States which apply the concept are not required to examine
whether an applicant qualifies as a refugee or for subsidiary protection status, where a
country which not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the
applicant pursuant to Article 26.2
In other words, the Member State may consider such
applications as inadmissible.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author of the article and not necessarily shared or endorsed by SteadfastAndLoyal.com

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.