Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the Refugees section
"(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion"
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry
You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status. For more information about asylum status, see the Asylum section.
Thank you. So, Snopes is correct. You can only apply for asylum if you are already in the United States.
Note also, that a refugee is defined as someone outside of their country, who is unable or unwilling to return. I guess a Guatemalan who fled to Mexico could apply for refugee status at the US Embassy, but not one who was still residing in Guatemala.
If a story favors a liberal topic they go with the facts and trumpet them. If the story favors a conservative topic they will degrade, insult, manipulate and play the "Semantics Game" to deny it.
Perfect Example;
The fires in Australia have been touted as being the holy grail of global warming. When Inforwars published the undeniable FACT, they the fires were actually started by arson, and not natural causes, Snopes looked into it.
Snopes immediately called the claim "FALSE" and proceeded to frame the original claim using derogatory comments like "conspiracy site", "denialism" and "false report";
"conspiracy site InfoWars that spreads climate change denialism, falsely reported that “nearly 200 people” were arrested in Australia for “deliberately” starting bushfires."
Snopes then went on to explain why it was FALSE (you ready for this?);
"Police in New South Wales released a statement disclosing that since Nov. 8, 2019, 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been charged with 205 bushfire-related offenses." And that "not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires"
THATS RIGHT, the claim was deemed "FALSE", not because it wasn't started by arson, but because Infowars said "nearly 200" which Snopes decided is not the same as 183, and because not all 183 contributed or did it "deliberately"
Snopes could have said it was true that it was Arson and not global warming that started the fires, and then nit-picked the semantics of "nearly" or the amount who did it "deliberately", but of course that goes against the narrative of global warming, so Snopes degraded the messenger and then labeled the entire story as FALSE.
If a story favors a liberal topic they go with the facts and trumpet them. If the story favors a conservative topic they will degrade, insult, manipulate and play the "Semantics Game" to deny it.
Perfect Example;
The fires in Australia have been touted as being the holy grail of global warming. When Inforwars published the undeniable FACT, they the fires were actually started by arson, and not natural causes, Snopes looked into it.
Snopes immediately called the claim "FALSE" and proceeded to frame the original claim using derogatory comments like "conspiracy site", "denialism" and "false report";
"conspiracy site InfoWars that spreads climate change denialism, falsely reported that “nearly 200 people” were arrested in Australia for “deliberately” starting bushfires."
Snopes then went on to explain why it was FALSE (you ready for this?);
"Police in New South Wales released a statement disclosing that since Nov. 8, 2019, 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been charged with 205 bushfire-related offenses." And that "not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires"
THATS RIGHT, the claim was deemed "FALSE", not because it wasn't started by arson, but because Infowars said "nearly 200" which Snopes decided is not the same as 183, and because not all 183 contributed or did it "deliberately"
Snopes could have said it was true that it was Arson and not global warming that started the fires, and then nit-picked the semantics of "nearly" or the amount who did it "deliberately", but of course that goes against the narrative of global warming, so Snopes degraded the messenger and then labeled the entire story as FALSE.
Did you read the Snopes article? The point they were making was that only a small number (24) of those arrested had to do with starting a fire and that many of those 24 had nothing to do with the bush fires.
Nothing very complicated. You really have to do pretzel logic to find an unjustified attack.
USCIS treats them as different terms, but they do appear related. It appears that someone seeking asylum has to be in the US or at a port of entry, AND must meet the definition of a refugee. That refugee definition does not include economic conditions, only race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.
I added bold, italic, and underline to some specific important definitional terms from the USCIS website.
Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the Refugees section
"(42) The term "refugee" means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion"
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:
Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry
You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status. For more information about asylum status, see the Asylum section.
THIS^
The OP is actually using lies to convince people that the truth is a lie. if the consequences were not so dire, it would be commical, but we see this week, the consequences of having a pathalogical liar with a dutiful base in power. His lies are their truth. It's hard to argue with the confidently uninformed.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 01-21-2020 at 07:15 AM..
Reason: edited quoted post
All the 183 "have been charged with 205 BUSHFIRE-related offenses". The 24 were just the people "charged with deliberately setting fires" .... which boggles the mind as most arsonists will claimed it was unintentional or an accident.
...Speaking of "accident", conveniently enough, 53 were caught and charged with STARTING A FIRE in violation of the fire ban (-though there was insufficient evidence to charge arson), and 47 more have been caught and charged with discarding lit matches or other burning objects to the ground (but again, insufficient proof of deliberate arson), and the other 59 are not mentioned.... nor is even ONE SINGLE natural cause.
The reason many sites like snopes are no longer accepted as fact based by cons is the extent to which the maniac has debased truth in this country and installed this fantastical belief in his base that the only source of truth is either what is flowing out of his piehole or what they hear on Fox News.
Snopes is hardly biased or leftist, almost all articles I’ve read on that site are simply dealing with the facts of the issue.
The problem is that a large percentage of our citizens are no longer capable of accepting facts.
If a story favors a liberal topic they go with the facts and trumpet them. If the story favors a conservative topic they will degrade, insult, manipulate and play the "Semantics Game" to deny it.
Perfect Example;
The fires in Australia have been touted as being the holy grail of global warming. When Inforwars published the undeniable FACT, they the fires were actually started by arson, and not natural causes, Snopes looked into it.
Snopes immediately called the claim "FALSE" and proceeded to frame the original claim using derogatory comments like "conspiracy site", "denialism" and "false report";
"conspiracy site InfoWars that spreads climate change denialism, falsely reported that “nearly 200 people” were arrested in Australia for “deliberately” starting bushfires."
Snopes then went on to explain why it was FALSE (you ready for this?);
"Police in New South Wales released a statement disclosing that since Nov. 8, 2019, 183 people, including 40 juveniles, have been charged with 205 bushfire-related offenses." And that "not all of the people charged committed acts that contributed to the raging brushfires"
THATS RIGHT, the claim was deemed "FALSE", not because it wasn't started by arson, but because Infowars said "nearly 200" which Snopes decided is not the same as 183, and because not all 183 contributed or did it "deliberately"
Snopes could have said it was true that it was Arson and not global warming that started the fires, and then nit-picked the semantics of "nearly" or the amount who did it "deliberately", but of course that goes against the narrative of global warming, so Snopes degraded the messenger and then labeled the entire story as FALSE.
OMG. It's not the cause of the ignition that's being blamed on global warming, it's the DRY CONDITIONS that fuel them. How the fires are starting is completely irrelevant!
Infowars fans will believe ANYTHING.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Snopes CLEARLY Lie's and manipulates
