United States Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of asylum limits


Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  10 months ago  •  20 comments

United States Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of asylum limits

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
1  seeder  1stwarrior    10 months ago

Sorry your Honor - "Practices" aren't laws - you should know that.

Sean Treacy
1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  1stwarrior @1    10 months ago

What a pathetic argument that was.

1.1.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1    10 months ago

I really can't believe that came from Sotomayer 'cause she's sharp.

1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  1stwarrior @1.1.1    10 months ago

As a butter knife .

1.2  Tacos!  replied to  1stwarrior @1    10 months ago
"Practices" aren't laws

Exactly. Who gives a shit what the longstanding practice is? Bribery could be a longstanding practice. That doesn't make it ok, much less binding legal precedent.

I can't believe a Supreme Court justice said that. I really can't.

If people wonder what we mean when we complain about "activist judges" this is one example of that. It's not the only way judges are activist, but it's one way. She wants to dictate to the executive branch what policy within the bounds of legally delegated authority should be. It's hard to imagine a more glaring violation of the separation of powers.

Vic Eldred
2  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

Thank God for that ruling. We have federal judges jumping up & down issuing national injunctions to all things the President has done to try and solve the open border crisis. Something has to be done about them!

2.1  MUVA  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    10 months ago

The national injunction has become a joke little women and men in black robes legislating from the bench.

Sean Treacy
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MUVA @2.1    10 months ago

The Supreme Court desperately needs to stop this practice. The idea that an unelected district court judge can set national poilicy on a whim is nonsesensical.

2.1.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    10 months ago

It's also a violation of law - they are only responsible for their district - nothing else.

3  Ender    10 months ago

So just come by boat I guess...

charger 383
4  charger 383    10 months ago

This is good we have too many problem of our own and are not taking care of our citizens

6  Tacos!    10 months ago

Here is a link to a pdf of her dissent , if anyone is interested. It's all about her feels on the matter. I you think the SCOTUS is supposed to be interpreting the law and not dictating policy, this should make you a little ill.

I'll also add that Sotomayor attempted to make it seem as if she was applying the facts to the law. However, she blatantly misrepresented what the regulation at issue says. In her dissent, she claims,

As relevant here, Congress restricted asylum based on the possibility that a person could safely resettle in a third country. See §1158(a)(2)(A), (b)(2)(A)(vi). The rule, by contrast, does not consider whether refugees were safe or resettled in Mexico—just whether they traveled through it.

That's not true. She's lying. That's not what the rule says. The rule is not limited to a simple assessment of whether refugees traveled in a third country. It bars them from seeking asylum in the US when they have made no effort to seek asylum in that third country (usually Mexico) and they could have before even trying the US.

Here's a link to a text of the rule , which reads:

The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security (“DOJ,” “DHS,” or collectively, “the Departments”) are adopting an interim final rule (“interim rule” or “rule”) governing asylum claims in the context of aliens who enter or attempt to enter the United States across the southern land border after failing to apply for protection from persecution or torture while in a third country through which they transited en route to the United States.

If you're fleeing persecution and you really need asylum, you apply for it as soon as you can, not after traveling through a couple of perfectly good countries just to get to the nicest one. That's called immigration and we have a different process for that.

She also copies and pastes the government's reason for the rule change, followed by the assertion that they made the change for no reason. Seriously!

On this score, the District Court addressed the Government’s principal justifications for the rule: that failing to seek asylum while fleeing through more than one country “raises questions about the validity and urgency” of the asylum seeker’s claim

Makes sense. Is there more?

and that Mexico, the last port of entry before the United States, offers a feasible alternative for persons seeking protection from persecution

Well, sure! That's true! Mexico is a feasible alternative. But Justice Sotomayor found the government's reasoning to be "arbitrary and capricious." She went on to say,

A “mountain of evidence points one way,” the District Court observed, yet the Government “went the other  with no explanation .”

No explanation? What did you just copy and paste then? 

She might be a smart lady, but on this issue, at least, she is showing zero integrity.

6.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Tacos! @6    10 months ago

What is really surprising to me about her comment is that in previous cases, she is "usually" very specific as to the validity and strength of the Laws, as written.

Something's not right in Kansas.

6.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1    10 months ago

I think she is passionate about this particular issue. At some point, I guess any justice is susceptible to that. Sometimes we get opinions or dissents from them that seem to detach from the law and are mainly about their visceral reaction to the issue.

7  lib50    10 months ago

The good news is that when we do have a dem president they will be able to do whatever the fuck they want!  And SCOTUS and the gop will support it all!  Got to look at the glass half full.  A change will be coming and the Trump shit will all be undone without dissent.   Thanks in advance, and do not doubt it will happen.  

7.1  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @7    10 months ago
The good news is that when we do have a dem president they will be able to do whatever the fuck they want!

I'd suggest the following minor CORRECTION to your post:

The good news is that IF we EVER have a dem president they will be able to do whatever the fuck they want!

Please pay particular attention to the two words in BOLD.

Knowing that, I would suggest you not hold your breath in anticipation.

7.1.1  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @7.1    10 months ago

I don't hold my breath for anything in politics.  But I know how the pendulum swings.  I've lived through enough of them.  Putin,  gerrymandering and voter suppression won't work forever.   

7.1.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  lib50 @7.1.1    10 months ago

All occurred during Obama's reign - didn't see you complaining then.

7.1.3  lib50  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.2    10 months ago

Comparing Putin's puppet to Obama?  

I've ALWAYS complained about gerrymandering.  Do you?

I've ALWAYS complained about voter suppression.  Do you?

I've ALWAYS considered Putin an adversary, and still do.  Do you?

Never has a president used the office like Trump.  Never.  From profiting off the office to allowing foreign adversaries influence over our own national security.  No president is perfect.  Trump is outright corrupt and his ignorance is costing the country dearly.


Who is online

38 visitors