Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross

[Peter1469]

Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross border illegally (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html)


A federal judge on Monday issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross the US-Mexico border illegally.

US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco issued the order to take effect immediately, and it will remain in effect until December 19, 2018.


"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote in the order.


The administration's rule, issued earlier this month, bans most asylum claims from immigrants who crossed the US-Mexico border illegally.

[Lummy]

"Asylum" from what? These people aren't seeking escape from persecution. They're seeking handouts from Bernie Sanders.

This judge is of Sanders' ilk.


Is the US 9th court acting in concert with the Mexican government?

[Lummy]

Oh, I know. The Hondurans are seeking asylum from the Mexican government? Now, that's some creative law goin' on.

[MMC]

Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross border illegally (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html)



Yep once again a Leftist Judge legislates from the Bench. Says Asylum seekers don't have to come thru the 26 legal check points asking for asylum


That it is alright for those seeking asylum to come across the border illegally.


What should take place is if one illegal asylum seeker gets in and kills any Americans. That San Francisco judge should be dragged out of ITS home and hung in the nearest tree.


As a shining example for the country.


Bet then those leftist Judges will think first before legislating from the bench.

[MMC]

More bad news for the Demos propaganda machine.


White House Has Released New Expectations For Press Conferences

The White House released new rules for presidential press conferences on Monday in hopes of restoring decorum among reporters. They include the following:





(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) "Yielding the floor" includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner.
(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist's hard pass.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...released-new-rules-on-press-releases-n2536223 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/11/19/the-white-house-has-released-new-rules-on-press-releases-n2536223)

[Hoosier8]

Well if Congress was serious they would legislate something. Don’t expect anything from the dem controlled House.

[Lummy]

More bad news for the Demos propaganda machine.


White House Has Released New Expectations For Press Conferences

The White House released new rules for presidential press conferences on Monday in hopes of restoring decorum among reporters. They include the following:





(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;
(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) "Yielding the floor" includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner.
(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist's hard pass.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...released-new-rules-on-press-releases-n2536223 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/11/19/the-white-house-has-released-new-rules-on-press-releases-n2536223)

To date, Acosta's greatest contribution to his profession.

[Standing Wolf]

Judge blocks Trump administration from denying asylum claims to immigrants who cross border illegally (https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html)



The judge is correct. Trump can't simply change the elements or provisions of a federal law on a whim.

For the record, I believe asylum seekers should mostly be required to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their home country and wait for an answer there...but as long as statutory avenues for applying at the border exist, and until such time as those provisions are removed from the law by Congress, they must be followed.

[Hoosier8]

The judge is correct. Trump can't simply change the elements or provisions of a federal law on a whim.

For the record, I believe asylum seekers should mostly be required to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their home country and wait for an answer there...but as long as statutory avenues for applying at the border exist, and until such time as those provisions are removed from the law by Congress, they must be followed.
What you believe asylum seekers should do is what happened to asylum-seekers after Ellis Island closed.

[MMC]

To date, Acosta's greatest contribution to his profession.

Yeah and I didn't see that the page flipped to this thread. My bad.

[Abby08]

What this judge is saying, then, is we must give asylum to anyone seeking it, just because they're seeking it? It's automatic? No vetting? If that's the case, how many of the Invaders are now, going to scream bloody murder, for asylum?

I've come to the conclusion, I hate Democrats, they're useless, they serve no purpose, they want nothing more than, the ruination of the country, they're liars and cheaters and, I hope they all die....at the hands of illegal 'asylum seekers'.... they're just as disgusting as the filthy trash, they want US to take in and support.

[Abby08]

Trump isn't known for going along, for doing what he's ordered to do, by liberal judges....in fact, he takes their orders as a challenge...he then, bucks the system and, does it his own way.....I'm counting on this, to be one of those times.

[Lummy]

Democrats with a whit of ethics are coming to the same conclusion: They hate Democrats.

Some of the shit they pull almost seems like fake news it's so deplorable. It is degenerating into a party of people who are angry because they are stupid.

[gamewell45]

Well if Congress was serious they would legislate something. Don’t expect anything from the dem controlled House.

The republicans had two years to legislate laws addressing this; why didn't they do something while they controlled all three branches of the government??

[Hoosier8]

The republicans had two years to legislate laws addressing this; why didn't they do something while they controlled all three branches of the government??
Full of RINO's that decided not to run again.

[Captdon]

"Asylum" from what? These people aren't seeking escape from persecution. They're seeking handouts from Bernie Sanders.

This judge is of Sanders' ilk.


Is the US 9th court acting in concert with the Mexican government?

They were all offered asylum in Mexico. I have to wonder what their case could be?

I wonder what Congress was thinking when they passed this law.

[MisterVeritis]

The judge is correct. Trump can't simply change the elements or provisions of a federal law on a whim.
Can you tell us what Federal law requires that an invader is allowed to claim asylum if they fail to sneak in?

[Captdon]

What this judge is saying, then, is we must give asylum to anyone seeking it, just because they're seeking it? It's automatic? No vetting? If that's the case, how many of the Invaders are now, going to scream bloody murder, for asylum?

I've come to the conclusion, I hate Democrats, they're useless, they serve no purpose, they want nothing more than, the ruination of the country, they're liars and cheaters and, I hope they all die....at the hands of illegal 'asylum seekers'.... they're just as disgusting as the filthy trash, they want US to take in and support.


No, we don't have to give asylum to anyone. There is a vetting process. Most seekers are not granted asylum. The problem is not being able to keep them in custody. We don't have any way to find them later. It's a stupid law.

[MMC]

The judge is correct. Trump can't simply change the elements or provisions of a federal law on a whim.

For the record, I believe asylum seekers should mostly be required to apply at the U.S. embassy or consulate in their home country and wait for an answer there...but as long as statutory avenues for applying at the border exist, and until such time as those provisions are removed from the law by Congress, they must be followed.

The Judge isn't correct.....True asylum seekers would head straight to the 26 legal border checkpoints. Not try to avoid them to get into the US.

Moreover.....not only did the US say there were some traveling with the Migrants from the ME and or Asia. So to did the Mexican and Guatemalan government.


Which no Judge gets to decide anything over National Security. Nor would he have such info. Nor would the ACLU and their activists.

[MisterVeritis]

Deploy 3-5 divisions to the border. Spend a few billions of dollars on additional concertina. Shoot any invader who tries to cross the barrier.

Shove one roll of concertina up that judge's ass.

[Standing Wolf]

What this judge is saying, then, is we must give asylum to anyone seeking it, just because they're seeking it? It's automatic? No vetting? If that's the case, how many of the Invaders are now, going to scream bloody murder, for asylum? ....

That is not even in the same universe as what the decision was about or what it said. The Trump administration is attempting to add provisions and exceptions to the rules that do not exist in the current law, in terms of who is eligible to seek asylum. If Trump wants those changes to be made, he's going to have to do it legally. Personally, I have nothing against that particular rule change, and - for all I or you or anyone else knows - neither does the judge in question. Trump wants to change the law by fiat, and the court is simply pointing out that he doesn't have the authority to do that.

[Lummy]

It's a declaration of war against the US, and it should be dealt with accordingly.

[MMC]

Trump isn't known for going along, for doing what he's ordered to do, by liberal judges....in fact, he takes their orders as a challenge...he then, bucks the system and, does it his own way.....I'm counting on this, to be one of those times.


He should already have been prepared to take it to the SCOTUS.....and he should tell the SCOTUS to warn those liberal judges not to legislate from the bench.


A stern warning to those leftist judges out in the 9th. While pointing out how many times SCTOUS has to step in and spank one of their asses.


Hook that Judge up under Abuse of Judicial discretion and or misconduct. Trump should file non stop complaints against leftists Judges that try to be more than what they actually are. Even not winning....goes down on that Judges record.

Destroy his livelihood and life.

[MisterVeritis]

That is not even in the same universe as that the decision was about or what it said. The Trump administration is attempting to add provisions and exceptions to the rules that do not exist in the current law, in terms of who is eligible to seek asylum. If Trump wants those changes to be made, he's going to have to do it legally. Personally, I have nothing against that particular rule change, and - for all I or you or anyone else knows - neither does the judge in question. Trump wants to change the law by fiat, and the court is simply pointing out that he doesn't have the authority to do that.
Can you provide a link to the current law, please?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

(a)Authority to apply for asylum
(1)In general
Any alien (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=380&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) who is physically present in the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=313&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) or who arrives in the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=314&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=315&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) after having been interdicted in international or United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=316&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#b).

[Standing Wolf]

He should already have been prepared to take it to the SCOTUS.....and he should tell the SCOTUS to warn those liberal judges not to legislate from the bench.


A stern warning to those leftist judges out in the 9th. While pointing out how many times SCTOUS has to step in and spank one of their asses.


Hook that Judge up under Abuse of Judicial discretion and or misconduct. Trump should file non stop complaints against leftists Judges that try to be more than what they actually are. Even not winning....goes down on that Judges record.

Destroy his livelihood and life.

Unbelievable.

[Standing Wolf]

Can you provide a link to the current law, please?

As easily as you can, V.

[Lummy]

They were all offered asylum in Mexico. I have to wonder what their case could be?

I wonder what Congress was thinking when they passed this law.

It feels like a concerted effort by communist Democrats in the US, the Mexican government and the migrants. It is all in agreement.

[Lummy]

Unbelievable.

Why is that?

[MisterVeritis]

As easily as you can, V.
I found it.

(2)Exceptions
(A)Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=381&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) if the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=152&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=153&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.




Let them apply from their home country or from Mexico.

[MisterVeritis]

The Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=171&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) may impose fees for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under section 1159(b) of this title (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1159#b). Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General’s costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of time or by installments.

Charge them the fee, up front. It costs tens of thousands of dollars to detain and evaluate these false claims.

[MMC]

Unbelievable.

Yes its unbelievable that some Leftist Judge would legislate from the bench, knowing what the Media reported about the caravan.

Can that Judge assure all that not one of those migrants seeking asylum wont kill any Americans or commit any crimes in the US?


If not.....then he has no business making any ruling at this time.

[The Xl]

If illegals can openly break the law, and if the left can selectively ignore and fail to enforce the law, then can the rest of us ignore laws we don't like too?

[MMC]

If illegals can openly break the law, and if the left can selectively ignore and fail to enforce the law, then can the rest of us ignore laws we don't like too?
Nope.....only if you are a Establishment Demo leftist. Then you can ignore rules, protocols, standards, procedures and Laws.


Ask Rod Blagoevich.

[Standing Wolf]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

(a)Authority to apply for asylum
(1)In general
Any alien (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=380&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) who is physically present in the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=313&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) or who arrives in the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=314&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=315&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) after having been interdicted in international or United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=316&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:I:s ection:1158) 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1225#b).

Thanks, V.

"...whether or not at a designated port of arrival..."

That would be the part that Trump apparently wants to pretend isn't part of the law.

[Hoosier8]

Thanks, V.

"...whether or not at a designated port of arrival..."

That would be the part that Trump apparently wants to pretend isn't part of the law.

What is ignored in this post is the Plenary Power Doctrine.


The history of immigration jurisprudence, therefore, contains the seeds of two radically different accounts of the President’s power over immigration: one grounded in inherent executive authority under the Constitution, the other rooted in the modern administrative state’s conception of executive authority originating exclusively from Congress’s decision to delegate.


https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4913&context=fss_papers

[Lummy]

That is not even in the same universe as what the decision was about or what it said. The Trump administration is attempting to add provisions and exceptions to the rules that do not exist in the current law, in terms of who is eligible to seek asylum. If Trump wants those changes to be made, he's going to have to do it legally. Personally, I have nothing against that particular rule change, and - for all I or you or anyone else knows - neither does the judge in question. Trump wants to change the law by fiat, and the court is simply pointing out that he doesn't have the authority to do that.

If the alien cannot prove persecution in his own country, he is to be removed without further review.

What else do you need to know?

[Lummy]

What is ignored in this post is the Plenary Power Doctrine.


... the other rooted in the modern administrative state’s conception of executive authority originating exclusively from Congress’s decision to delegate.

Meaning what?

[Tahuyaman]

Well if Congress was serious they would legislate something. Don’t expect anything from the dem controlled House.
In all fairness, the Republicans don’t have the balls to do anything about it either. The only difference between them and the Democrats is that Dems don’t want to fix the issue and the Reps are afraid to.

Besides, both sides want the illegals pouring in. Just for different reasons.

[Tahuyaman]

Still, the Congress needs to do some thing about these activists courts all over the country getting involved in things which are outside of their authority.

[AZ Jim]

What this judge is saying, then, is we must give asylum to anyone seeking it, just because they're seeking it? It's automatic? No vetting? If that's the case, how many of the Invaders are now, going to scream bloody murder, for asylum?

I've come to the conclusion, I hate Democrats, they're useless, they serve no purpose, they want nothing more than, the ruination of the country, they're liars and cheaters and, I hope they all die....at the hands of illegal 'asylum seekers'.... they're just as disgusting as the filthy trash, they want US to take in and support.Rave on *spit mask for this one* easy, easy it'll be ok we'll have your meds here soon.

[MisterVeritis]

Thanks, V.

"...whether or not at a designated port of arrival..."

That would be the part that Trump apparently wants to pretend isn't part of the law.
Now read all of the exceptions. It seems to me that President Trump is on solid Constitutional and legal grounds.

[Standing Wolf]

If the alien cannot prove persecution in his own country, he is to be removed without further review.

What else do you need to know?

This decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation behind the asylum request. It has to do with Trump trying to say, in effect, "If you try to sneak in, we're not even going to consider you for asylum". The law does not contain that provision.

[Hoosier8]

Meaning what?

The constitution vs current practices.

[MisterVeritis]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
1182(f)
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=582&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) or of any class of aliens (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=583&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) into the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=416&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) would be detrimental to the interests of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=417&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182), he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


The judge is a rogue judge. He should be removed from his position.

[Captdon]

SCOTUS might rule the present law about holding only for 20 days is un-Constitutional. It violates the power of the President to protect the country. I see Trump asking SCOTUS for an emergency hearing. I also see him winning this one. I also see the Democrats going crazy.

[Standing Wolf]

8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
1182(f)
(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=582&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) or of any class of aliens (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-92903111-1485256781&term_occur=583&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) into the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=416&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182) would be detrimental to the interests of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=417&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:II:part:II: section:1182), he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


The judge is a rogue judge. He should be removed from his position.


Nice citation. Unfortunately it is completely inapplicable in the current discussion.

[MisterVeritis]

Nice citation. Unfortunately it is completely inapplicable in the current discussion.
You err. Completely.

Once again I am right (and you are not).