Is there a special class of refugee in the United States for climate refugees? Is there a special class of refugee in the United States for climate refugees? If the United States had to take in climate refugees under what legal class of refugee would they be brought under? Political refugee or something else? I am wondering if there's anything the law says in that regard or legislation is required to make it clear.
The US does not &quot;have to&quot; take in any refugees. There is a provision under US law pertaining to asylum. First, the person has to be in the US, including &quot;having arrived at&quot;. The principle underlying a grant of asylum is that a special exception is made if not allowing the person into the US and repatriating them to their country of citizenship would make then &quot;unsafe&quot; in specific ways. If that can instead be repatriated to a safe third country (e.g. were granted asylum in Norway then decided to move to the US), then they are not eligible for asylum in the US unless the Attorney General determines that it is in the interest of the US. There are various provisions whereby a person from Eritrea (for example) would not be admissible, such as having participated in the repression or being a criminal. This article gives a detailed analysis of the criteria for asylum, which reduce to unwillingness to return to one's home 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 You would have to decide what a &quot;climate refugee&quot; is to see how the law applies. For example, if you mean &quot;a climate-change denier who is subject to persecution for expressing their skepticism&quot;, that would be covered by the protected category of political opinion. The actual climate in a country is not grounds for granting asylum.
They can't take his citizenship... Since he claims to be a born citizen, he has citizenship by birthright and nothing CBP can do can possibly revoke it. He can voluntarily renounce his citizenship, but he has to do that through the State Dept. (which CBP is not part of). And that is an elaborate and expensive process that can't even be done inside the United States. If someone could do it merely by entering without papers and asking for a self-deport, lots of expats would save a lot of money - and that's not gonna happen :) ...but they could put him to serious inconvenience In this particular case, CBP found his documents suspect. Probably because (if it's the case we've seen documented elsewhere) he was with two other people whose entry was illegal, and they had forged documents. So most likely, if he agreed to self-deport, CBP would use that as prima-facie evidence that he is not a bona-fide citizen, and therefore, that his papers are faked. They certainly will not give fake papers back to someone who has tried to pass them. So the victim would be obliged to go back to SSA, the state, etc. and re-acquire his identity documents. From outside the country. It's a pretty big chore.
Foreign citizens are just as entitled to Fourth Amendment protections against search and seizure as American citizens are. The case you cited was, in fact, a South Korean citizen who successfully had evidence suppressed from an unjustified border search.
In the US it is not a crime to be in the country illegally. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States. Arizona v US So it's illegal, you get a state induced consequence (deportation) but it doesn't make you a criminal e.g. you don't go to jail for it. I have no idea if that's what's going on over there but it's a plausible explanation.
In theory, this should be protected by the UN Dec. of Human Rights: Article 13 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Since it does not specify the type of movement, or restrict its dimensions, this could be construed to include freedom of movement through time as well as space. Other than that things like this there is no real law regarding this.
As far as I can tell, one can hold any beliefs or lack thereof, and there is no need to register your beliefs with the government per se. However, there are laws where religion is relevant, such as the Hindu personal laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or the Hindu Succession Act, such as stating who gets your stuff if you die intestate. These laws apply to Hindus, and since Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists are treated as legal Hindus (!), it applies to them; and to any other person who is not a Muslim, Christian, Parsi or Jew by religion unless it is proved that any such person would not have been governed by the Hindu law or by any custom or usage as part of that law in respect of any of the matters dealt with herein if this Act had not been passed. and don't ask me to interpret that "unless clause". That is, the Hindu laws do not apply to Muslims, Christians, Parsis or Jews. On the face of it, that would mean that Yazidis would be treated as Hindus, w.r.t. the subject matter of those laws. Registering a religion isn't relevant to the question: what matters is that the Indian Government decided to create these particular laws, and they have not created any Yazidi-specific laws. There are currently no national laws prohibiting religious conversion, and I can't find the state laws. This article discusses such laws, noting that some states require a person to register their conversion. I seems that the restriction is on A converting B, and not on B converting sua sponte.
As someone with ties to the "foreign" community in the United States, I see these "marriages of convenience" from time to time. In their most "legitimate" form, the couple will move to the same address and "technically" live together, but without consummating the marriage so that it can later be legally annulled. American immigration authorities counter this by asking each spouse about the other's underwear (literally!). Some "marriages of convenience" are legal, insofar as they technically conform to the marriage documents, e.g. regarding "co habitation," even while violating the spirit of the law. Others don't. Your best chance of attacking such "marriages" is not regarding the marriage itself (basically only the couple can decide what constitutes a valid marriage), but rather "compliance" with the marriage documents. That's something any law enforcement officer can understand.
I'm not aware of any any IRC provision allowing a deduction for those suffering from &quot;natural disasters,&quot; but there are several provisions allowing preferential treatment for income and losses linked to a &quot;federally declared disaster.&quot; IRC section 165 defines &quot;federally declared disaster&quot; as: any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Because the governors for all states and territories have requested and received disaster declarations under the Act, retroactive to January 20, 2020, COVID-19 is a federally declared disaster for tax purposes, according to the IRS.