Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions

I'd like to see a single one of these open border advocates try and immigrate to another country, ANY country so they can see what true immigration enforcement is like. You basically have to be wealthy with a good education to immigrate to nearly every country but the USA.

a reply to: Lumenari

Rather easily, since we already have one with Guatemala

No we don't.

Guatemala safe third country agreement is pretty much dead hotair.com...

Roughly one month ago, the White House announced that we were closing in on a safe third country agreement with Guatemala, scoring what was perceived as a major win on immigration for President Trump. At the time, we noted that there were several serious flaws in the plan which might prevent it from coming to fruition. One was the fact that the deal was being cut with a lame-duck president who was on his way out (Jimmy Morales) and we didn’t know who the next leader would be or what their view on the deal might look like. Also, constitutional questions were raised in that country because the legislature would need to approve any such agreement before it could be finalized.

Now the first question has at least been answered. The winner of the runoff election and incoming president (in January) is Alejandro Giammattei, and this week he declared that the safe third country agreement was not something he could support. Why? Because even he doesn’t believe that his own nation could be considered a safe third country.

We don't have one with Mexico either, or El Salvador, or Hunduras.

Can you point out to me anywhere in the law that says you HAVE to physically be in the USA to seek asylum?

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

www.uscis.gov...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

About Time the SCOTUS Reads the Constitution before making a Ruling Based NOT on their " Personal Beliefs " .........

originally posted by: Lumenari

Can you point out to me anywhere in the law that says you HAVE to physically be in the USA to seek asylum?

Thanks in advance...

It's a leftist word game.

Asylum is the name for refugee status given to a person appearing at your border or within your country. So by definition, you must apply in person and only in person for "aslyum".

But the US also generously will accept your application for refugee status for the same reasons (and others) at embassies, consulates, and a number of UNHCR sites and through other NGO organizations world-wide.

So "they have to come here in order to apply for asylum" is technically true, but deliberately obtuse.


It's like you saying "I want pizza. We have to go out to get pizza", and I ask, "Couldn't we just have it delivered", and you say, "You can't go out to eat and stay home. You have to go to the restaurant 'to eat out.'"

It's technically true, but entirely misses the point.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So we still have an agreement with Guatemala then, but the current President doesn't support it.

And we are working on other ones.

Thanks for clarifying.

As for the rest...

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

Highlighted that part for you.

So you simply cannot get a referral through the United Nations Refugee Agency?

You know... the conventional way to apply for refugee status on planet Earth.

Although THAT will usually get you relocated in another country that will be safe for you and not the United States.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Asylum is the name for refugee status given to a person appearing at your border or within your country. So by definition, you must apply in person and only in person for "asylum".

That's kinda true, but the President has the unique discretion in deciding who, when, why and how many refugees are allowed in the United States annually, whereas asylum seekers can't be turned away.

That's why the president can just say no to Bahamian refugees. While there are many kinds of refugee victims, asylum status is very narrow.

a reply to: Lumenari

So we still have an agreement with Guatemala then, but the current President doesn't support it.

No we don't. The deal was never solidified by a legislative vote of Guatemalan lawmakers. Now, it doesn't even have the incoming presidents support.

Safe third country agreements force prospective asylees to seek protections in the first country they step foot in outside the territory they are fleeing.

The Trump administration has sought such agreements with Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries — Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — but has so far been unsuccessful in getting those countries to process all refugees from third countries transiting their territories.

The United States currently maintains such an agreement only with Canada, and that agreement mostly serves as a border management deal to keep asylum applicants from processing their claims at the physical border between the two North American countries.

thehill.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

SoOo....

In all the articles I'm reading about this that assure me that Trump and Morales signed an agreement and it is legally binding, it no longer is because....

The left doesn't agree with it?

Cool... when do our tariffs begin then?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

We've danced this dance before, and you're right: those other people are not guaranteed protection by the treaty, and neither are asylees who transited another safe country.

a reply to: Lumenari

Trump and Morales signed an agreement, that still needed to be ratified by the country's legislature. That hasn't happened, and now, with a new president opposing it, it won't.

It's the same with Guatemala. The country's legislative body hasn't voted for it, yet. So, it isn't officially in place.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

Trump and Morales signed an agreement, that still needed to be ratified by the country's legislature. That hasn't happened, and now, with a new president opposing it, it won't.

It's the same with Guatemala. The country's legislative body hasn't voted for it, yet. So, it isn't officially in place.

So does this also nullify the Supreme Court decision the thread is about?

Probably not, right?

I have been watching and trying to learn from our esteemed friends on the far left. I know I can never match their finesse at this sort of thing, but I do want to try it once. Everyone feel free to critique my style afterwards.

OK, here goes....

"ahem*

La-la-la-la!

*ahem*

OK, I think I'm ready... deep breath...

LOL! You guys are so silly! The Supreme Court said Trump is right, so that means he's right! Those phrases in the law don't say what you thought they did. Are you a Justice on the Supreme Court? No? Then your opinions are irrelevant! It's the law now, so you better get used to it.

Whew! That's harder than it looks. Did I do it right?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

~shocked look~

You used the left's style to tell a Truth!

Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse or something?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now that was funny!

You did a good job too

a reply to: Lumenari

a reply to: visitedbythem

What can I say? You look at something long enough, and it becomes doable!

Thanks for the feedback.

(Did I just kill the thread?)

TheRedneck

is anyone else sick of this system where unelected officials can shut down an administration for months with practically no consequences? i even called that the dems would do this because when they find one thing that works once they will beat it like a drum afterwards. maybe instead of things being put on hold until its found to be illegal we just let the policy go into effect and if its found by the courts to be illegal later then let the administration take the hit. we the people can make an out of control administration pay at the ballot box imo, not some bureaucrats.

so how many wins is this for the trump admin now against random liberal judges?

a reply to: TheScale

No. Not really. I'm happy with the system designed to keep the Federal government in gridlock.

But I get the frustration.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they had traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

www.msn.com...

I'm fine with this rule. My question is, what country in Central America qualifies as a "safe 3rd Country"?

Don't count on Mexico.

Although he discarded any notion of his government signing a "safe third country" agreement, Ebrard noted that the deployment of National Guard units for immigration enforcement purposes is a permanent assignment.

www.msn.com...

Well, what country in Central America is currently persecuting people based on race, religion, or politics?

a reply to: Wardaddy454

All of them, apparently.

Notably, the number of Central Americans from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who received asylum status grew from 1,007 in 2012 to 8,480 in 2017.

www.migrationpolicy.org...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

False. That is why this is needed, the asylum process was being abused by Democrats. Please source your claims about persecuting people based on race, religion, or politics. What race, religion, political party is being persecuted exactly?