I don't suppose there's a reason you didn't include the 'exceptions' part of that section.
Hypocritical indeed.
No hypocrisy because the statute says exactly what i said.
Furthermore, none of the exceptions applies in general. It’s certainly possible that there are some individuals within the caravan that have applied previously, but they can be weeded out when they apply - that’s part of the purpose of having an application review process - that would be the (a)(2)(C) exception. The time limit exception clearly doesn’t apply because none of them have entered yet, so the one-year clock hasn’t started running yet - that would be the (a)(2)(B) exception - and the safe third country exception doesn’t apply because that requires several predicates, none of which has occurred, including (i) the existence of a bilateral or multilateral agreement under which the alien can be removed - which cannot apply here because the US only has such an agreement with Canada right now - and (ii) a determination by the Attorney General that the alien in question can be safely removed pursuant to that agreement, which also hasn’t taken place (all we have is a proclamation from the president, which doesn’t count for the statute) and which can’t take place in this case because, as pointed out above, the necessary agreement doesn’t exist with Mexico.
So, what hypocrisy did I commit in omitting exceptions that do not apply?