Trump administration scores win over challenge to asylum restriction

I’d say the American people scored a win.

From Fox News: A federal judge decided Wednesday to leave in place a Trump administration rule that imposes restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States if they passed through a third country on their way to the border between the U.S. and Mexico, potentially leading to a sharp reduction in Central American migrants entering the country.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, requires people seeking asylum to first apply in one of the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S., with certain exceptions. The rule was quickly met with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. The rule will remain in place for the duration of the case, unless the decision is successfully appealed.

“We are disappointed in the court’s decision today,” said Claudia Cubas, litigation direction for the Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition.

Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump said the immigrant advocate groups who filed the lawsuit did not show that their work would be irreparably harmed if the policy moved forward.

With certain exceptions, the rule requires individuals to apply for and be denied asylum in another country in order to apply in the U.S. That means that migrants from Central American nations who travel through Mexico – who make up a significant portion of recent asylum seekers – will not be eligible for asylum in America unless they previously applied for asylum in Mexico or any other country they traversed and were turned down.

The new rule’s exceptions include certain cases of human trafficking.

The rule is meant to crack down on asylum seekers coming to the U.S. more for economic reasons than to escape persecution in their home countries. Administration officials say this could help close the gap between the initial asylum screening that most people pass and the final decision on asylum that most people do not win. The goal in part is to allow quicker determinations in these cases.

The policy follows the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly referred to as the “remain in Mexico” policy. Under that policy, asylum seekers were often told to go back to Mexico to await hearings, rather than be allowed to remain in the U.S.

Democrats railed against that policy, with 2020 hopeful Beto O’Rourke calling it “inhumane.”

A reduction in asylum seekers would ease the burden on federal agencies currently overwhelmed by the volume of individuals seeking entry into the U.S.

Detention facilities have been notoriously stretched for resources, resulting in outcries against the government. The criticism has particularly been strong when it comes to the conditions in which migrant children have been kept.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment authors
Jackie PuppetDCGAuntie LuluKevin J LankfordLophatt Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Dr. Eowyn
Admin

Trump’s judicial appointments are having an effect! 😀

James Patterson
Guest
James Patterson

All of his actions *and* non-actions are having an effect: 1) pardoned 5 Wall Street Megabanks for massive fraud 2) keeps trying to start war with Iran, Venezuela or NK 3) the Bush Clan, the Clinton Syndicate, and the Manchurian are still walking around free 4) PizzaGate ignored 5) Trump is now part of the coverup of the stolen 21+ trillion 6) Trump’s administration is composed of the worst swamp critters – neocons, zionists and Wall Streeters 7) Trump is in bed with zionist, apartheid Israel and is making illegal rulings as to Israel and the occupied Golan Heights 8)… Read more »

Dr. Eowyn
Admin

I agree with most of your points, except for #2. Just yesterday, I read that he’s considering getting rid of John Bolton because of the latter’s warmongering.

My question to you: What viable alternative do we have?

Dr. Eowyn
Admin

Alas, we rejoiced too soon. 🙁

Yesterday, US District judge in San Francisco, Obama appointee Jon Tigar, issued a preliminary injunction to halt Trump’s policy banning asylum seekers who pass through another country while en route to the United States.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/just-in-obama-appointed-activist-judge-temporarily-halts-trumps-new-asylum-ban/

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Yep. It is amazing to me that he DOES do positive things while seeming to miss some of the most obvious. What happened to the Obongo/Clinton FISA investigation? I agree with “JP” (above) that he’s probably the best thing that ever happened to Israel. I’ll even keep my mouth shut about that for the moment. He declared an “emergency” at the border. One cannot declare an emergency and just walk away. He is still signing legislation. Why? As to the “asylum” issue. The whole purpose of this rule is precisely that asylum seekers are seeking asylum out of fear, not… Read more »

Auntie Lulu
Guest
Auntie Lulu

Well, I guess I was celebrating too soon! I don’t understand how a judge can issue a decision when he does not have a specific case before him? These liberal/activist judges are ruining this country.

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

Seems to me, since these judges have no real jurisdiction over the matter, any how, The Prez could just say “first come first serve”, or some such thing.

I really can’t see where this judge that ruled against President Trump, or any of them arrogantly ruling against known statute, would get the backing to enforce their unConstitutional and illegal rulings, any how.

Auntie Lulu
Guest
Auntie Lulu

DCG . . . Great article. I am very glad that this reasonable judgement was reached. Now if only it can be cleared thru the Supreme Court.