I'm just passing through again, but I have a little luggage to drop off here for your perusal.

This (the Fox News thing) was posted by a friend of mine. It was followed by a couple of ignorant and prejudiced comments. I found it unacceptable and responded with the following:

...speaking of knowledge vs hearsay, there is nothing in the law that says an immigrant seeking asylum has to do so at a port of entry. Further, they have up to a year after entry (wherever they entered) to file for asylum. Due process says they must be scheduled for a hearing and it says nothing about being detained, caged, or separated from family. This is bullshit, [name deleted]. I have lived with this law for over 30 years, have dealt with immigrants, including my own family. I have a wife who is a legal resident, one of my daughters is a naturalized citizen. I began the legal process to get my son up here in 1999. It is now 2019. That, if my math is correct, comes out to 20 years following the 'process'.

It should also be pointed out that the US is not the top country on a per capita basis when it comes to immigrants entering the country and seeking asylum. But first, let's look at what the law says as opposed to what Homan said:

'''''''''''''
A foreign national who seeks asylum in the United States may do so either affirmatively or defensively.[4] An affirmative asylum seeker is physically present in the United States. This person must apply for asylum within one year of his arrival in the United States.[5] He may be undocumented, living in the United States without status, or may have entered the U.S. on a visa which will soon expire.[6]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services reviews affirmative asylum claims through a non-adversarial interview with an asylum officer at one of eight offices nationwide. The affirmative asylum seeker requests asylum by completing an I-589 Application, which asks for personal information about the seeker and her family and for the grounds of asylum, whether she has ever experienced “harm or mistreatment or threats,” whether she “fears harm or mistreatment” if forced to return home, whether she’s been imprisoned or detained in countries outside of the United States and other questions.[7] By answering these questions, the asylum seeker can demonstrate that she is not barred from asylum for any of the reasons listed in the immigration laws.

After interviewing the applicant, the asylum officer may grant the asylum status or refer the applicant to immigration court for removal proceedings, where she may pursue the application for asylum before an immigration judge.

A defensive asylum applicant is a person who is apprehended after entering the United States at a border and applies for asylum while the threat of removal by the Department of Homeland Security looms.[8] An applicant must be in removal proceedings in immigration court to request asylum in this manner. The application is the same, but the asylum seeker must file his application with the immigration court with jurisdiction over the applicant’s case. The applicant must show that persecution is more probable than not if he is forced to return home.

''''''''''''''
"...many other countries are much more accepting of asylum seekers than the United States is. In fact, the United States ranks 50th in the world in net increase in asylees, refugees, and people in similar situations as a share of its population since 2012."

[cato.org];

I suggest you read the article in its entirety. You might just learn something. Perhaps reading the law would help, too. In the past two years I have seen more ignorance displayed on this subject than on most others combined. I'm also seeing a lot of prejudice coming from people I thought knew better.

[foxnews.com]