Jeff Sessions put big asylum changes into the footnotes
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
When Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled that domestic violence and gang victims are not likely to qualify for asylum in the US, he undercut potentially tens of thousands of claims each year for people seeking protection.
But in a footnote of his ruling, Sessions also telegraphed a desire for more sweeping, immediate reinterpretations of US asylum law that could result in turning people away at the border before they ever see a judge.
Sessions wrote that since "generally" asylum claims on the basis of domestic or gang violence "will not qualify for asylum," few claims will meet the "credible fear" standard in an initial screening as to whether an immigrant can pursue their claim before a judge. That means asylum seekers may end up being turned back at the border, a major change from current practice.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Trump administration has focused on asylum claims -- a legal way to stay in the US under domestic and international law -- characterizing them as a "loophole" in the system. The problem, they say, is many claims are unsuccessful, but in the meantime as immigrants wait out a lengthy court process, they are allowed to live and work in the US and build lives there, leading some to go into hiding.
Experts estimate that most of the migrants from Central America who claim asylum at the southern border are fleeing violence committed by someone other than the government, like gangs or abusive individuals -- exactly the type of claim that will be rejected after Sessions' Monday ruling.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Asylum and credible fear claims have skyrocketed across the board in recent years largely because individuals know they can exploit a broken system to enter the US, avoid removal, and remain in the country. This exacerbates delays and undermines those with legitimate claims," Bars said.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sessions suggests that if an asylum seeker passed through another country and didn't seek asylum there, or came into the US illegally, those could be factors that a judge could use to reject asylum.
Tags
Who is online
136 visitors
GOOD !
"My neighbors picking on me"....or...."I can't make enough money where I live"..... isn't going to get you here …..SIMPLY....anymore !
"Complainers change their complaints, but they never reduce the amount of time spent in complaining."
Mason Cooley
Because most of those claims are bullshit! Asylum is supposed to be based on an expectation of actual persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. It almost always has to come from government action or deliberate government refusal to protect minorities persecuted by others.
Ordinary paranoia doesn't count. Ordinary poverty or high crime rates don't count. And no, Domestic Violence doesn't count. Poverty, gangs, and abusive boyfriends are everywhere - even in the US.
But the people rushing the border know (partly because activist US lawyers go to Mexico to tell them so) that all they have to do is rush the border and claim asylum, and the US authorities will let them stay in the country pending a hearing, which won't happen for years.
It is a gross abuse of the system and it is long past time that we combat this fraud.