I am a refugee law legal scholar. I want to offer some insight on what this means and why it was not previously part of the process as some of you are wondering.

Please note that my qualification is a law-focused, refugee protection, graduate qualification and not a JD from an American Bar school, so I am not able to offer total understanding of the US legal system on this.

Please understand that there is a full, legal and codified difference between an immigrant and a refugee which the US and all other countries recognize. Please also know that the lying, fake media routinely and purposely conflate these two groups to the detriment of refugees in order to garner sympathy for illegal immigrants who are NOT refugees.

It looks to me there are two classes of protection in the US: refugees and asylees. I am unsure why the US separates those seeking protection from persecution into two classes. Refugees are legally entitled through US and international law to everything citizens are minus voting. States don’t want to give that many rights to non-citizens so usually they come up with classes like “asylee” to still give those people protection w/out the rights entitled to refugee status. (Convention (Treaty) on Status of Refugees, Ch. 2-5)

This rule seems to be written for asylum-seekers who are not refugees (although they would undergo the same vetting probably). The reason this would not have been a rule before is that the treaties and international agreements on refugee status are left intentionally broad to allow the 120-some odd countries who accept refugees to integrate this into their domestic law. The US when integrating the Convention of Status of Refugees would not have had such guidance from the text developed by the contracting parties.

The texts also allow for states to exclude and expand refugee protection as fit. Therefore, it is very admirable and within the US’ rights to begin to further define who is allowed asylum and who is not. I have read the proposed Final Rule and it is a big win for legitimate refugees and asylum seekers under the Trump administration because it bars those who should not be seeking protection, and don’t let the media tell you differently.

EDIT: and yes, the treaty on refugee status has an infamous pair of clauses, 1F: Non-Application, Article 32: Expulsion, and Article 42: Reservations which allow the US to not admit asylum seekers who are criminals; we just are now integrating that into practice with all people seeking asylum.

I am a refugee law legal scholar. I want to offer some insight on what this means and why it was not previously part of the process as some of you are wondering.

Please note that my qualification is a law-focused, refugee protection, graduate qualification and not a JD from an American Bar school, so I am not able to offer total understanding of the US legal system on this.

Please understand that there is a full, legal and codified difference between an immigrant and a refugee which the US and all other countries recognize. Please also know that the lying, fake media routinely and purposely conflate these two groups to the detriment of refugees in order to garner sympathy for illegal immigrants who are NOT refugees.

It looks to me there are two classes of protection in the US: refugees and asylees. I am unsure why the US separates those seeking protection from persecution into two classes. Refugees are legally entitled through US and international law to everything citizens are minus voting. States don’t want to give that many rights to non-citizens so usually they come up with classes like “asylee” to still give those people protection w/out the rights entitled to refugee status. (Convention (Treaty) on Status of Refugees, Ch. 2-5)

This rule seems to be written for asylum-seekers who are not refugees (although they would undergo the same vetting probably). The reason this would not have been a rule before is that the treaties and international agreements on refugee status are left intentionally broad to allow the 120-some odd countries who accept refugees to integrate this into their domestic law. The US when integrating the Convention of Status of Refugees would not have had such guidance from the text developed by the contracting parties.

The texts also allow for states to exclude and expand refugee protection as fit. Therefore, it is very admirable and within the US’ rights to begin to further define who is allowed asylum and who is not. I have read the proposed Final Rule and it is a big win for legitimate refugees and asylum seekers under the Trump administration because it bars those who should not be seeking protection, and don’t let the media tell you differently.