From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

The author of this SCOTUSblog post was amused at Alito's annoyance with Sotomayor when he was giving his usual terse summary of his opinion for
the majority in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. When Alito has enough notice
that a dissenting opinion will be read from the bench, he lighlights
more of his majority opinion to rebut the dissent. He didn't find out
what she intended to do soon enough to prepare to rebut her.

The facts of this case were that a would-be asylum seeker was
physically prevented from entering the United States, and thus
"arriving" for the purpose of asserting an asylum claim. This assertion
musst be made on U.S. soil. Alito ruled, as expected, that the man's
rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act weren't violated and an Immigration officer need not be sent outside the United States so he may
assert a claim.

I think the writer missed something bigger. Sotomayor invoied the
tragedy of the passengers of the M.S. St. Louis, all Jews, desperately
seeking asylum in any country that would have them. None would accept
them, including the United States. They returned to Germany and perished
in the Holocaust.

The world briefly felt shame and sympathy toward the Jews and set up the
asylum treaty relying on countries to enforce it in domestic immigration
law.

Asylum claims are difficult as the treaty describes situations similar
to WWII and what the Jews faced during the Holocaust. Modern situations
in which someone must flee for his life are rarely analogous.

But I'm wondering about people who support broadening the ability to
make a successful asylum claim sympathizing with today's Jews, who see Palestine as the most important issue and don't believe the Jews deserve
to live without concern for attacks from Hamas in Palestinian
territories and Hezbolah in Lebanon.

They are willfully ignorant of the history of asylum claims and why it
even exists in international law to begin with.

I don't see many of them supporting asylum if it's inteded for the
benefit of Jews.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/an-unusual-retort-to-a-dissent-from-the-bench/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:47:15 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

The author of this SCOTUSblog post was amused at Alito's annoyance with >Sotomayor when he was giving his usual terse summary of his opinion for
the majority in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. When Alito has enough notice
that a dissenting opinion will be read from the bench, he lighlights
more of his majority opinion to rebut the dissent. He didn't find out
what she intended to do soon enough to prepare to rebut her.

The facts of this case were that a would-be asylum seeker was
physically prevented from entering the United States, and thus
"arriving" for the purpose of asserting an asylum claim. This assertion
musst be made on U.S. soil. Alito ruled, as expected, that the man's
rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act weren't violated and an >Immigration officer need not be sent outside the United States so he may >assert a claim.

I think the writer missed something bigger. Sotomayor invoied the
tragedy of the passengers of the M.S. St. Louis, all Jews, desperately >seeking asylum in any country that would have them. None would accept
them, including the United States. They returned to Germany and perished
in the Holocaust.

The world briefly felt shame and sympathy toward the Jews and set up the >asylum treaty relying on countries to enforce it in domestic immigration
law.

Asylum claims are difficult as the treaty describes situations similar
to WWII and what the Jews faced during the Holocaust. Modern situations
in which someone must flee for his life are rarely analogous.

But I'm wondering about people who support broadening the ability to
make a successful asylum claim sympathizing with today's Jews, who see >Palestine as the most important issue and don't believe the Jews deserve
to live without concern for attacks from Hamas in Palestinian
territories and Hezbolah in Lebanon.

They are willfully ignorant of the history of asylum claims and why it
even exists in international law to begin with.

I don't see many of them supporting asylum if it's inteded for the
benefit of Jews.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/an-unusual-retort-to-a-dissent-from-the-bench/

That is a bizarre article about a ruling that merely says that you
have to BE on US soil to claim asylym in the US. This is how it was
for virtually forever until the Biden administration who chose to
ignore simple definitions.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On 2026-06-27 4:47 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:

The author of this SCOTUSblog post was amused at Alito's annoyance with Sotomayor when he was giving his usual terse summary of his opinion for
the majority in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. When Alito has enough notice
that a dissenting opinion will be read from the bench, he lighlights
more of his majority opinion to rebut the dissent. He didn't find out
what she intended to do soon enough to prepare to rebut her.

The facts of this case were that a would-be asylum seeker was
physically prevented from entering the United States, and thus
"arriving" for the purpose of asserting an asylum claim. This assertion
musst be made on U.S. soil. Alito ruled, as expected, that the man's
rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act weren't violated and an Immigration officer need not be sent outside the United States so he may assert a claim.

I think the writer missed something bigger. Sotomayor invoied the
tragedy of the passengers of the M.S. St. Louis, all Jews, desperately seeking asylum in any country that would have them. None would accept
them, including the United States. They returned to Germany and perished
in the Holocaust.

The world briefly felt shame and sympathy toward the Jews and set up the asylum treaty relying on countries to enforce it in domestic immigration
law.

Asylum claims are difficult as the treaty describes situations similar
to WWII and what the Jews faced during the Holocaust. Modern situations
in which someone must flee for his life are rarely analogous.

But I'm wondering about people who support broadening the ability to
make a successful asylum claim sympathizing with today's Jews, who see Palestine as the most important issue and don't believe the Jews deserve
to live without concern for attacks from Hamas in Palestinian
territories and Hezbolah in Lebanon.

They are willfully ignorant of the history of asylum claims and why it
even exists in international law to begin with.

I don't see many of them supporting asylum if it's inteded for the
benefit of Jews.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/an-unusual-retort-to-a-dissent-from-the-bench/

I really don't know how immigration officials can easily distinguish
between a genuine asylum claim and a spurious one offered by a would-be migrant who just wants a better life (even if that is just a life on
welfare). "Immigration consultants" abound who - for a fee - will tell
clients the magic words to say to justify an asylum claim. It's not very
hard for someone to concoct a sympathetic story that is complete
bullshit but it's very hard to PROVE it is bullshit. The genuine asylum claimants get lost amidst all the bullshit claims that bog down the
system that tries to sort the wheat from the chaff.

While I understand that polygraph evidence isn't admissible in court
because up to 10% of people can fool a polygraph, I wonder if we could
use them in immigration screening? Hook asylum claimants up to the
machine, give them an interview, and if the machine says they're lying,
deport them. Some bad apples will get in but probably a lot less than
now. Hopefully, there will be very few genuine asylum claimants that
fail to get in. This would seem like a very effective way to clear up
the backlogs of asylum claimants.
--
Rhino
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I really don't know how immigration officials can easily distinguish
between a genuine asylum claim and a spurious one offered by a would-be >migrant who just wants a better life (even if that is just a life on >welfare). "Immigration consultants" abound who - for a fee - will tell >clients the magic words to say to justify an asylum claim. It's not very >hard for someone to concoct a sympathetic story that is complete
bullshit but it's very hard to PROVE it is bullshit. The genuine asylum >claimants get lost amidst all the bullshit claims that bog down the
system that tries to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The foreign national presents himself to immigration officials at a port
of entry, or surrenders to border patrol crossing illegally. He states
that he is seeking asylum. Then there is supposed to be a "credible
fear" interview as an unutial screening. These are entirely subjective.

Trump is allowing nearly no one to assert an asylum claim.

None of this is provable and decisions are subjective. The fear may
indeed be genuine -- Honduran gangs forced my family to leave. This
isn't an asylum claim. However, if police have been corrupted by the
gang and are complicit, that could be an asylum claim.

While I understand that polygraph evidence isn't admissible in court
because up to 10% of people can fool a polygraph, I wonder if we could
use them in immigration screening? Hook asylum claimants up to the
machine, give them an interview, and if the machine says they're lying, >deport them. Some bad apples will get in but probably a lot less than
now. Hopefully, there will be very few genuine asylum claimants that
fail to get in. This would seem like a very effective way to clear up
the backlogs of asylum claimants.

If every law school graduate were required to spend a couple of years in
the immigration administrative court system at some point, maybe that
could clear the ridiculous backlog.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 19:01:57 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I really don't know how immigration officials can easily distinguish >>between a genuine asylum claim and a spurious one offered by a would-be >>migrant who just wants a better life (even if that is just a life on >>welfare). "Immigration consultants" abound who - for a fee - will tell >>clients the magic words to say to justify an asylum claim. It's not very >>hard for someone to concoct a sympathetic story that is complete
bullshit but it's very hard to PROVE it is bullshit. The genuine asylum >>claimants get lost amidst all the bullshit claims that bog down the
system that tries to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The foreign national presents himself to immigration officials at a port
of entry, or surrenders to border patrol crossing illegally. He states
that he is seeking asylum. Then there is supposed to be a "credible
fear" interview as an unutial screening. These are entirely subjective.

WRONG! The Supreme Court has ruled this in not valid. The law is
that they must be on American soil. Your "interpretation" is why we
had that massive influx of illegals during the Biden administration.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2