It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Rigged Immigration Courts left over from Obama Administration 😎




posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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?


WTF? You want to review each and every case, because Democrats? LOL You don't get asylum unless you can prove persecution based on race, religion, or politics.


Nationals of China, El Salvador, and Guatemala accounted for 45 percent (12,013) of those granted affirmative or defensive asylum status in 2017 (see Table 2). 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.



Table 2

www.migrationpolicy.org...



edit on 12-9-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

False. That is supposed to be why.

A US federal judge on Wednesday struck down the policies put in place by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions that made it harder for individuals fleeing domestic and gang violence to obtain asylum.


Democrats were giving it out for domestic abuse and if someone claimed they were worried about gang violence. Nothing at all to do with the things you detailed ... which are supposed to be the criteria. Democrats attacked Trump for refusing asylum to people who did not meet that criteria.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

At the time the asylum was granted to those in question, certain kinds of domestic violence (and gang domination) constituted persecution of a social group.


a 2014 landmark decision in Matter of A-R-C-G (initials drawn from the names of the asylum seekers)—they recognized domestic violence as grounds for asylum. More explicitly, this precedent-setting decision held that “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their husbands” constituted a particular and persecuted social group.

www.kinoborderinitiative.org...


We find that the lead respondent, a victim of domestic violence in her native country, is a member of a particular social group composed of “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship.”

www.justice.gov...

So, this decision was made after a immigration tribunal through a Board of Immigration Appeals Court, and was legal and binding.

There's you proof that all 2017 asylum cases were decided based on persecution, even Gualemalan wives.

The fact that Trump and Session unilaterally scrapped that definition from their list of qualifications doesn't invalidate those asylees.

I'm guessing that you guys also feel that female genital mutilation and forced child marriages are also NOT a kind of persecution of a social group.



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As to gang violence...It's rare, but asylum has been granted to victims of gang violence at least since 1997.


Orozco-Polanco, United States Immigration Ct., El Paso, TX (December 18, 1997)
Granted: Asylum
Holding that being a young, poor, Guatemalan male constituted a social group for purposes of meeting the statute. Additionally, the respondent expressed anti-gang sentiments, constituting political opinion, and both these grounds entitled respondent to asylum.

Enamorado, United States Immigration Ct., Harlingen, TX (November 22, 1999)
Granted: Asylum

Holding that former membership in a gang could constitute a social group to meet the statutory grounds for asylum, due to the fact that respondent would most likely be persecuted by gang members, the government, and nongovernmental entities. This case was not barred by persecution against others because respondent never actually participated in gang activities and was tattooed against his will.

Calderon-Medina, United States Immigration Ct., Los Angeles, CA (May 1, 2002)
Granted: Asylum
Holding that because respondent was attacked by gang members, was adverse to gangs and their practices, and vocalized his opposition to the gang members, respondent was persecuted because of his political opinion and qualified for asylum.

United States Immigration Court, Baltimore, MD (November 8, 2006)
Granted: Asylum

Holding that a respondent was a member of the social group consisting of Guatemalan women who refuse predation by gang members, finding that both being a woman and refusing sexual and violent advances by gang members are immutable characteristics. Respondent presented testimony from PhD’s who found that she suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of ongoing harassment from gang members.

www.unhcr.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Immigration Court is not part of the Judiciary Branch... as such it is not subject to the same restrictions as a Federal Court. Immigration Court is a part of the Executive branch and thus is under the indirect purvue of the President of the United States.

And... the Supreme Court, which is the head of the Judiciary, just said it's OK and Trump is right... so it's OK and Trump is right!

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 12 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The Immigration Court is not part of the Judiciary Branch... as such it is not subject to the same restrictions as a Federal Court. Immigration Court is a part of the Executive branch and thus is under the indirect purvue of the President of the United States.


So? Trump's new rule adjustment is being challenged though the Judicial Branch.
Sessions' new rule have no bearing on, and don't invalidate the asylum cases already granted.



the Supreme Court, which is the head of the Judiciary, just said it's OK and Trump is right... so it's OK and Trump is right!


No it didn't. The Supreme Court said that Trump could go ahead and enforce his new rule UNTIL the case winds its way through the courts, and there is a final ruling. Trump hasn't won anything, yet, except the ability to try and enforce this rule in the meantime. We'll see how it works.

Already, Mexico is saying they don't answer to the US Supreme Court, and the ruling won't effect the way they handle immigrants.

What happened is...
Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs if they didn't curtail the flow of immigrants coming through Mexico to the USA. He also insisted they sign a "safe 3rd country" treaty with the USA. Mexico is claiming that their efforts to stem the flow of immigrants to the US has been successful, is permanent, and therefore there is no need to sign the "safe 3rd country" treaty. So, as of now, Mexico is not a safe country, legally, and they have no intention of signing in the near future.

In the meantime, Trump withdrew funding from Guatemala, and demanded they sign a "safe 3rd country" treaty, if they want that money back. But, Guatemala had an election and the new President has said "we won't sign". So, Trump still has no treaty with any country in Central America, that he can rely on to ease the flow of immigrants. So, he decided to decree that the 3rd country doesn't have to have a treaty, or be "safe", but immigrants have to apply there anyway.

But, he doesn't have the cooperation of these countries' governments, and they aren't in a position to guarantee safety, either financially or structurally for these immigrants. These governments are poor, riddled with corruption and run by gangs like M 13. That's a problem for the Trump admin's defense. Immigrants running from persecution, gangs or whatever, are going to be vulnerable to corruption if they have to ask a corrupt government for protection.

So, we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out, with Mexico, Guatemala and the US courts.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


So? Trump's new rule adjustment is being challenged though the Judicial Branch.
Sessions' new rule have no bearing on, and don't invalidate the asylum cases already granted.

Yes, it is, and the attempt to stop it failed. Not sure why you think this affects already granted cases, but whatever.


So, we'll just have to wait and see how this plays out, with Mexico, Guatemala and the US courts.

Yes, we will. In the meantime, the rule stands. The Supreme Court said so. Done.

No recourse until the case appears before the 9th circuit, which could be drug out a couple years if someone wants to. How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot for a change?

MAGA!

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Not sure why you think this affects already granted cases, but whatever.


I don't think it does. WarDaddy suggested that no Central Americans were being persecuted. so, I provided stats. Over 8400 Central Americans were granted asylum in 2017.

OccamsRazor04 wanted proof that the Central Americans granted asylum during 2017 were persecuted. He claimed those stats were false, because of Session's rule change regarding gang and domestic violence. So, I found the legal explanations why those cases were considered persecution. I claimed that Sessions' new rules didn't change the asylum status of those granted asylum in 2017.



No recourse until the case appears before the 9th circuit, which could be drug out a couple years if someone wants to. How's it feel to have the shoe on the other foot for a change?


Now sure why this puts a shoe on my foot. But, I'm guessing you're talking about the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare. But, this isn't a case ruling. SCOTUS merely lifted the injunction until the case is heard. It isn't settled, especially since the countries in question aren't going along with it.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So exactly what I as saying. They were twisting it to give it to people who do not meet the criteria. An abusive husband is not being persecuted because of your social group.


I'm guessing that you guys also feel that female genital mutilation and forced child marriages are also NOT a kind of persecution of a social group.

Exactly. That would entitle every woman in all of those areas to asylum. If it applies to everyone, then it doesn't match the definition. It also does nothing to help those who are left behind, so it is not a valid solution.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



They were twisting it to give it to people who do not meet the criteria.


They successfully proved their case did meet the criteria, and were granted asylum. Just because Sessions' changed the rules, that doesn't mean that the cases that came before weren't justified or valid.



An abusive husband is not being persecuted because of your social group.


Merely having an abusive husband was never a criteria. The court found "torture" and extreme persecution of a specific social group of women in Guatemala. Not all domestic violence is grounds for granting asylum, but things like forced female genital mutilation and forced child marriages are still grounds for asylum in the USA.



That would entitle every woman in all of those areas to asylum.


No, it wouldn't. You must be on US soil to claim asylum. You can't do it from the Middle East. But, if a young women on US soil is requesting asylum based on such a fate, she just might win.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And activist judges keep blocking Trump as well, until the SC overrules them. That is how the Democrats get what they want. They do not care about what the law actually says, they make rulings to push social agendas and transform the law. That is not their place.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




... they make rulings to push social agendas and transform the law. That is not their place.


That's what Trump and his administration are doing right now. He's rewriting decades old immigration law by edict. It's politics and it's a pendulum's swing. Trump's policies are not some kind of reckoning of objective truth or some kind of righteous correction of the moral high ground. It's politics.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He is doing the opposite. He is following the law, not rewriting it. That is why the SC keeps ruling in his favor after liberal activist judges foam at the mouth and block him.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I think it's funny watching people like Sookie here scrambling when realizing illegal immigrants are not going to be the ace up the sleeve in the elections anymore. No 9th circuit or Hawaiian judge is going to shut this down either.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: 1337Kph

It's funny to watch people jump the shark to defend anything their Cult 45 leader does.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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


I cant believe I waited two days to check this thread and missed this gem! Im dying!



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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...


Lol hardly. As I've said before, the majority are just seeing it as another way to leave their countries. Economic reasons are not valid for seeking asylum or refugee status.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Supreme Court has ruled against the liberal activist judge who was breaking the law with his ruling where he gave himself the power to make his ruling to apply to states outside his jurisdiction.

It would be like an Illinois judge saying Chicago's gun ban is enforceable in Atlanta.



posted on Sep, 13 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


OccamsRazor04 wanted proof that the Central Americans granted asylum during 2017 were persecuted. He claimed those stats were false, because of Session's rule change regarding gang and domestic violence. So, I found the legal explanations why those cases were considered persecution. I claimed that Sessions' new rules didn't change the asylum status of those granted asylum in 2017.

No, he claimed they were false because they did not meet the definition of asylum in the US Code. That definition is given in 8 USC § 1101(a)(42).

(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that 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, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

You'll notice that last part... it is the exact opposite of the decision you posted. In your posted decision, a woman was deemed to qualify for asylum for not being allowed to have an abortion, while in the actual law a woman can qualify for asylum because of a reasonable fear of being forced to have an abortion. Also, persecution refers to legal persecution, not just that one's husband is not doing what one thinks they should.

In all cases of conflict between a special court and US law, US law prevails.

There is also no guarantee of asylum in any case. Per 8 USC § 1158(b)(1)(A):

The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

The Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General may... may, not must... may, not shall... may grant asylum. US Code specifies when asylum may not be granted; it leaves to the Executive branch to determine if an alien will be granted asylum.

As to removal of asylum status, see 8 USC § 1158(c)(2):

(2) Termination of asylum
Asylum granted under subsection (b) does not convey a right to remain permanently in the United States, and may be terminated if the Attorney General determines that—
    (A) the alien no longer meets the conditions described in subsection (b)(1) owing to a fundamental change in circumstances;

    (B) the alien meets a condition described in subsection (b)(2);

    (C) the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien is eligible to receive asylum or equivalent temporary protection;

    (D) the alien has voluntarily availed himself or herself of the protection of the alien’s country of nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the alien’s country of last habitual residence, by returning to such country with permanent resident status or the reasonable possibility of obtaining such status with the same rights and obligations pertaining to other permanent residents of that country; or

    (E) the alien has acquired a new nationality and enjoys the protection of the country of his or her new nationality.
The entire US Code that deals with asylum places the Attorney General or Homeland Security in total charge of determination of asylum status. The decisions you brought up are not judicial; they are executive. The Immigration Court is under the complete control of the Attorney General and Homeland Security, and policy for determination of asylum eligibility can be changed via Executive Order or simply by memo from the Attorney General or Homeland Security at any time.

There is no right to asylum. There is a right to be considered for asylum fairly under the policies maintained by the Executive branch, which are subject to review and change as determined by the President, the Attorney General, or Homeland Security. Even then, individual applicants may be singled out for reasons specified in the code, one of which is (8 USC § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iv)):

(iv) there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States;
That's pretty general.

In simple terms, the decisions you posted are subject to the whim of the Executive branch. They are not precedents.


SCOTUS merely lifted the injunction until the case is heard. It isn't settled, especially since the countries in question aren't going along with it.

The new rules are still in effect. US immigration law is not subject to the whims of another country. The ruling by the Supreme Court is unusual in that an injunction was removed at such a high level, indicating a belief that the judge in question seriously overstepped his bounds. It's the equivalent of being a low-level line manager in a company, and the owner of the company stating an action taken is out of order instead of the immediate supervisor stating such. You listen or you go home. Period.

In other words, the lower Federal court judges who have been trying to insert themselves unjustly in immigration matters can no longer protect those who want open borders.

TheRedneck







 
48
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join