Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Proclamation About Asylum Seekers

[HumblePi]

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]

CA, Obama appointee....who guessed? Like the travel ban, this too will stay.

 

[RileyCoyote]

The left is anti American.

 

[ludin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tanngrisnir]

CA, Obama appointee....who guessed? Like the travel ban, this too will stay.

Tell me, when you read the ruling, what was it you objected to?

 

[lwf]

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]

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.

 

[Napoleon]

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.

 

[Plus Ultra]

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.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

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

 

[Napoleon]

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

Would have been a regulation created by Jeff Sessions - left standing unless his successor rolls it back.

 

[JoanDavis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

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

That would be the current AG now then... or can you counter with something logical and truthful?

No.