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

The Supreme Court's order was not a final ruling on the merits, but it at least temporarily ends the injunctions everywhere, and allow the policy to proceed nationwide while lower courts in the 9th Circuit address the case.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

"Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution," Sotomayor and Ginsburg wrote.

So it seems it was a 7-2 ruling .. and the 2 dissenters did not dissent based on law, but based on what past administrations have chosen to do. Bigly win.

www.foxnews.com...

This is about the one reason I want to see President Trump get another 4 years. He's been blocked and delayed every step of the way in his first term.

Only fear I've got is that he's going to give everything to his oligarch buddies if he's re-elected.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What's even more interesting is that the 9th Circuit Court (that's California, y'all!) removed the nationwide injunction earlier this week. That court struck down the injunction put in place by liberal OBAMA judge JON TIGAR...TWICE. Tigar was shot down twice by this once liberal rubber-stamp court.

The Ninth Circuit granted the administration’s request for a stay late Tuesday night (9-10-2019), just one day after San Francisco-based U.S. District Court judge Jon Tigar issued, for the second time, a nationwide injunction blocking the administration from implementing its new asylum policy.

Source: www.nationalreview.com...

Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has approved President Trump's effort to keep Americans safer!

Increasingly, Americans are seeing the "Trump effect" from him appointing almost 180 conservative judges, from coast to coast. (It's funny hearing Trump describe how Obama was derelict in leaving behind so many vacant judicial seats.)

WINNING FOR AMERICA!

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...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All of them unless you show otherwise.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


I agree its a legitimate concern but the way we have been doing it has not been working out as well in our border areas so something needs to change.


The good thing is that down the road it can be addressed again hopefully after we have over hauled our process for immigrants coming in to become americans.


The free for all for some while others waded through the mess of a system wasn't fair to anyone.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It doesnt require it to be safe. It requires themto seek safe haven there first. Then they can apply here while seeking safe haven there.

Its about making Mexico accountablr for being a funnel to our border.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How does work with our asylum law that states "You must be present in the United States in order to apply for asylum"?

Or, do asylum seekers now need to first show that they applied for "safe haven" and were rejected, or allege that they aren't safe, and that they have no "safe haven" in the third country they're in, in order to apply for asylum in the US?

a reply to: Sookiechacha
They have to show they sought asylum in another country first. They can't skip to America.

So Mexicans could direct apply because there is no other country they can apply in.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

How does work with our asylum law that states "You must be present in the United States in order to apply for asylum"?

Or, do asylum seekers now need to first show that they applied for "safe haven" and were rejected, or allege that they aren't safe, and that they have no "safe haven" in the third country they're in, in order to apply for asylum in the US?

~sigh~

(a) Authority to apply for asylum
(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

(2) Exceptions

(A) Safe third country

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that 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 would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

Why do people only read the first paragraph of a law?

The second paragraph is what we are talking about.

a reply to: Lumenari

The tldr is economic migrants who bypass other countries to get to America may be denied asylum.

That's how I read it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lumenari

The tldr is economic migrants who bypass other countries to get to America may be denied asylum.

That's how I read it.

Well, nowhere in our asylum laws is the ability to claim asylum under "I can make more money here."

Or domestic violence... although there is a caveat for medical admission.

a reply to: Lumenari

No not should there be. Get a H1b visa for that.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lumenari

No not should there be. Get a H1b visa for that.

Exactly!

Past administrations have been going around our actual immigration laws by using and abusing the asylum system.

THAT is getting fixed now.

Still not tired of winning...

a reply to: Lumenari

And the liberal activist judge who kept overstepping his boundaries was disgusting. There is no guarantee the SC will rule for Trump in the end, but what Tigan did is disgusting.

a reply to: Lumenari

pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement...

Can you point me to that agreement, with Mexico or any other Central American government?

Our Immigration laws were and still are a joke and the world knows it. Thousands of people from Angola, Eritrea, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo have been crossing over to Colombia then heading North to the US. It is bad enough that Central and South Americans have been abusing the system and Illegally crossing our borders, but now we even have people coming from Africa trying to jump our borders.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Depending on how it is worded and what the courts rule, you may be right, this may only be the 1st step. The end goal should be anyone fleeing persecution should be required to seek asylum in the first country they cross into unless they can show they would face persecution in that country. Otherwise they are economic migrants.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lumenari

pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement...

Can you point me to that agreement, with Mexico or any other Central American government?

Rather easily, since we already have one with Guatemala and are working on them in El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama.

Liberal-Friendly Link

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...

Trump plays the long game. There is only so long you can tie things up in court and he knows very well how to wait it out.

I am glad to see this and also news of how much of the wall is actually being completed.