• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Proclamation About Asylum Seekers

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
24,112
Reaction score
15,573
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A Federal judge has ruled that Trump cannot legally block any asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Nov. 20, 2018

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
CA, Obama appointee....who guessed? Like the travel ban, this too will stay.
 

RileyCoyote

Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
354
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The left is anti American.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CA, Obama appointee....who guessed? Like the travel ban, this too will stay.

why these judges constantly ignore past rulings is amazing.

You may apply for asylum if you are at a port of entry or in the United States.
per the USCIS website.
 

Casca XV

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
7,086
Reaction score
1,402
Location
State of Jefferson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A Federal judge has ruled that Trump cannot legally block any asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Nov. 20, 2018

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

There will always be Leftist Fruitcakes in Black Robes occupying lower courts.

It's good that there are actual Constitutionalists on SCOTUS.

After Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg croaks, The President can seal the deal.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
70,516
Reaction score
40,157
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A Federal judge has ruled that Trump cannot legally block any asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Nov. 20, 2018

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

Hmm... how did DACA/DAPA come to be "the law of the land"?
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,444
Reaction score
29,791
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A Federal judge has ruled that Trump cannot legally block any asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Nov. 20, 2018

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

Here we go...

Another "law and order" Obama-appointed judge weighing in and protecting illegal alien criminals.

Anyway, doesn't matter. All this means is we'll have to spend the money to house these criminals until we can work them through the system and then reject their asylum request. Thanks to that judge, they get a free ride for a while...at taxpayer expense.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
24,112
Reaction score
15,573
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here we go...

Another "law and order" Obama-appointed judge weighing in and protecting illegal alien criminals.

Anyway, doesn't matter. All this means is we'll have to spend the money to house these criminals until we can work them through the system and then reject their asylum request. Thanks to that judge, they get a free ride for a while...at taxpayer expense.

He used the law as a basis for his judgement, go figure.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden”
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
40,296
Reaction score
11,692
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A Federal judge has ruled that Trump cannot legally block any asylum seekers from applying for asylum in the U.S.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Nov. 20, 2018

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

Within days, the administration submitted a rule to the federal register, letting it go into effect immediately and without the customary period for public comment.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.
I am starting to wonder if we have ceded our Republican form of government to unelected judges....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 

lwf

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2018
Messages
10,999
Reaction score
6,214
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am starting to wonder if we have ceded our Republican form of government to unelected judges....

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Separation of powers was designed to ensure that political power is not concentrated in the hands of individuals or groups. Do you feel that was a mistake?
 

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In an order laced with language accusing President Donald Trump of attempting to rewrite immigration laws, a federal judge based in San Francisco temporarily blocked the government late Monday night from denying asylum to those crossing over the southern border between ports of entry. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html
“between ports of entry” (in the judge’s determination) is a euphemism for “illegally crossing the border". Judge Tigar found that the President cannot deny the right to apply for asylum to immigrants who cross the border illegally.
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point '"irreconcilably conflicts" with immigration law and the "expressed intent of Congress." https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html
“Expressed intent” in legal and judicial circles means “so stated”, “explicitly indicated”, “specifically expressed”. We know Congress or the immigration authorities never “explicitly” expressed the intent to “specifically” authorize the application of asylum for immigrants who illegally entered the US, what was “expressly”, “explicitly” and “specifically” stated was that applications could be made “at entry ports” or anywhere in the US, from this it is derived (interpreted) that the applicant need not have entered lawfully at a port of entry, but it could just as well be interpreted to mean applicants did not need to make the application for asylum when they lawfully entered at a port of entry, that they secured access lawfully and subsequently applied for asylum once admitted.
"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, adding that asylum seekers would be put at "increased risk of violence and other harms at the border" if the administration's rule is allowed to go into effect. (emphasis added) https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/judge-asylum-restrictions/index.html
The judge failed to include a reference to this “expressly forbidden” Congressional language, if he has none Trump should be successful overturning this decision as one cannot find explicit Congressional (or immigration authority) language that states “illegal immigrants" (those who enter other than through ports of entry) can apply for asylum.

There was a time (long before Obama) when I saw and heard of conservative criticism of the judges in San Francisco and the 9th “Circus” and found it exaggerated, but now this has become predictable, I expect everything Trump does to be successfully challenged in San Francisco, upheld by the 9th Circuit and overturned in the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,455
Reaction score
5,070
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
He used the law as a basis for his judgement, go figure.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden”

Except the judge ignored the plain text of the law and Supreme Court precedent. The most glaring example being that the proclamation was made “under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General” and the law says the decisions of the Attorney General in this matter are not subject to judicial review.
 
Last edited:

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'm searching for that "expressly forbidden" language, I see INA regulations that allow asylum applications anywhere in the US (which would be at other than "ports of entry") but haven't found an explicit statement "illegal aliens" or those who entered the US unlawfully cannot specifically be precluded from making an asylum application.

I think this judge interpreted INA language to mean immigrants who snuck across illegally could apply for asylum since the INA had to accept their applications anywhere in the US, but I think an equally valid interpretation would be that lawful immigrants who gained admission at a port of entry without claiming asylum, could subsequently make such an application anywhere in the US.
 
Last edited:

Unitedwestand13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
20,720
Reaction score
6,276
Location
Sunnyvale California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Except the judge ignored the plain text of the law and Supreme Court precedent. The most glaring example being that the proclamation was made “under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General” and the law says the decisions of the Attorney General in this matter are not subject to judicial review.

What attorney general? Currently there is only an acting attorney general
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CA, Obama appointee....who guessed? Like the travel ban, this too will stay.

The judge who ordered trump to reinstate Jim Acosta's press credentials was a dubya appointee. So your point is irrelevant.
 

JoanDavis

Banned
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,303
Reaction score
594
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The left is anti American.

And the right is pro-Russian, pro-North Korean, pro-Saudi Arabian AND anti-American. Well you can't be pro-American if you love Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia - right? Those 3 countries are now YOUR allies.

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave right now.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
14,455
Reaction score
5,070
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm searching for that "expressly forbidden" language, I see INA regulations that allow asylum applications anywhere in the US (which would be at other than "ports of entry") but haven't found an explicit statement "illegal aliens" or those who entered the US unlawfully cannot specifically be precluded from making an asylum application.

I think this judge interpreted INA language to mean immigrants who snuck across illegally could apply for asylum since the INA had to accept their applications anywhere in the US, but I think an equally valid interpretation would be that lawful immigrants who gained admission at a port of entry without claiming asylum, could subsequently make such an application anywhere in the US.

That is the only reasonable interpretation because one thing Congress actually has expressly forbidden is illegal entry.
 

Plus Ultra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2017
Messages
1,639
Reaction score
412
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is the only reasonable interpretation because one thing Congress actually has expressly forbidden is illegal entry.
Please provide the specific (express or explicit) language for that.
 

RileyCoyote

Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
354
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And the right is pro-Russian, pro-North Korean, pro-Saudi Arabian AND anti-American. Well you can't be pro-American if you love Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia - right? Those 3 countries are now YOUR allies.

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave right now.

What a dumb post.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The judge who ordered trump to reinstate Jim Acosta's press credentials was a dubya appointee. So your point is irrelevant.

That's the most inane comparison I've seen in some time. Wanna rethink that?
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And the right is pro-Russian, pro-North Korean, pro-Saudi Arabian AND anti-American. Well you can't be pro-American if you love Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia - right? Those 3 countries are now YOUR allies.

Ronald Reagan is rolling in his grave right now.

You are on a roll.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He used the law as a basis for his judgement, go figure.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden”

As a regular person on the planet I can look this stuff up, why cannot an imbecile like this judge figure it out...especially seeing as we just had the President upheld under the travel ban by the USSC over two renegade federal judges? Using the same authority no less.

Oh yeah, he too was appointed by that infamous constitutional scholar, slenderman.

Here is the law:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, 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."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182


This was given by the acting authority, Congress, delegating this important power to the President, of any party, to use when deemed necessary.

Yano?
 
Top Bottom