Opinion: Supreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

OpinionSupreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect

11:15  12 september  2019
11:15  12 september  2019 Source:   foxnews.com

Children not exempt from Trump's toughest asylum policy, officials say

Children not exempt from Trump's toughest asylum policy, officials say The new enforcement will include turning back children who arrive at the southern border without their parents. © Paul Ratje Image: FILES-US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-JUSTICE-ASYLUM The new policy would make asylum seekers ineligible if they passed through another country on their way to the United States and did not first seek asylum there. The officials said they will return immigrants who arrived in the U.S. on or after July 16 to their home countries if they cannot prove they sought asylum elsewhere.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to bar many Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States. The court said the administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from people who had traveled

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused on Friday to allow the Trump administration to immediately enforce its new policy of denying asylum to migrants who illegally cross the Mexican border.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Supreme Court makes right decision allowing Trump asylum policy to take effect© FoxNews.com Supreme Court allowing crackdown on asylum seekers; Florida Sen. Rick Scott reacts.

The Supreme Court was right Wednesday to stop a lone federal district court judge in San Francisco from blocking a Trump administration policy designed to limit the ability of Central American migrants to seek asylum in the U.S.

The new Trump administration policy requires migrants from Central America and elsewhere who first travel through Mexico to seek asylum there before seeking asylum in the U.S.

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of asylum crackdown

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of asylum crackdown U.S. SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO ENFORCE NEW ASYLUM RESTRICTIONS NATIONWIDE

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed asylum restrictions by President Donald Trump 's administration to take effect , preventing most Central Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting from the Supreme Court 's decision , wrote that: "Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that

The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed two decisions by a federal judge that blocked implementation of President Donald Trump ’s policy barring asylum for migrants who pass through another country en route to the U.S. The order allows the policy

Under the policy, a migrant first has to be refused asylum in Mexico before he or she could seek asylum here. The Trump administration policy also applies to migrants who travel through other third countries before seeking U.S. asylum.

SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP ASYLUM RESTRICTIONS TO TAKE EFFECT, ENDING 9TH CIRCUIT INJUNCTIONS

But a larger issue is at stake: whether a single federal judge can issue a nationwide order blocking presidential action or even legislation passed by Congress.

Importantly, Wednesday’s Supreme Court order wasn’t a final ruling on the merits of the new Trump asylum policy. The high court simply ruled that an order by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar blocking the new policy cannot take effect until the Supreme Court rules on the merits of the asylum policy.

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect

Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect The Supreme Court issued an order late Wednesday blocking a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's proposed ban on immigration asylum for anyone trying to cross the southern border by transiting through a third country. © Joe Raedle/Getty Images/File A group of people some of whom are coming from Honduras, Mexico, Cuba, and Guatemala, wait to turn themselves in at the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry bridge to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel for asylum consideration on January 13, 2019, in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump ’s new asylum rules to take effect , suspending a pair of injunctions by a California The court announced on Wednesday evening it would allow the enforcement of the new rules, pending government appeal of two decisions in the

The Supreme Court 's order was not a final ruling on the policy 's merits but does allow the policy to take effect nationwide, including in the 9th Circuit, while the case makes its way President Trump tweeted that the ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum !"

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state – had earlier ruled that Tigar’s order blocking implementation of the Trump asylum policy could only take effect in those states and Guam, but not nationwide.

However, the Supreme Court ruling Wednesday overturned even that narrower appellate court decision, effectively blocking Tigar’s order from going into effect anywhere until a final high court ruling.

In a statement Wednesday night, the U.S. Justice Department said it “is pleased that the Supreme Court intervened in this case, which enables full implementation of this important immigration rule across the entire southern border. This action will assist the Administration in its objectives to bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.”

Supreme Court may again fast-track a legal dispute over Trump's immigration plans

Supreme Court may again fast-track a legal dispute over Trump's immigration plans WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is weighing a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration that seeks to close the door to nearly all migrants who seek asylum at the southern border. And once again, the justices are being asked to decide a far-reaching legal question on a rushed basis, without the usual oral arguments or months of deliberation. Since 1980, U.S. law has promised those who flee persecution and violence in their home country a right to at least apply for asylum here. But on July 16, the Trump administration announced a new rule that would declare "ineligible " those who traveled through Mexico and did not seek asylum there.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the Trump administration can enforce a strict new restriction against asylum seekers who arrive at the southern border, lifting a lower court 's block on the policy . In July, the administration said it would only consider asylum requests from migrants who sought

The US Supreme Court has given the go-ahead to Trump administration plans that severely limit the ability of migrants to claim asylum . Under the rule, people arriving via a third country must claim asylum there first before arriving at the US border. Legal challenges against it continue but the ruling

And President Trump tweeted that the high court ruling was a "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!"

Tigar’s order – known as an injunction – marked the second time that the judge stopped the Trump policy. The president’s asylum policy was designed to reduce the number of Central Americans illegally crossing our southern border – a situation President Trump has designated as a national emergency, as is his right under the law.

This case shows how a single judge in a “resistance” court like the San Francisco federal district court can bring the entire U.S. government to a grinding halt – even when the judge is wrong on the law.

There can be little doubt that nationwide injunctions like the one issued by Tigar have become the latest tool to stop President Trump from exercising the legal authority at his disposal.

In eight years, the Obama administration faced just 20 nationwide injunctions. In less than three years, the Trump administration has faced 40. This is a dramatic increase.

Judges like Tigar have produced a system of legal roulette, where any opponent of a president can simply shop around for the friendliest courts from which to challenge all of the federal government’s policies.

Judge Leans Toward Blocking Trump Asylum Restriction Nationwide

Judge Leans Toward Blocking Trump Asylum Restriction Nationwide A federal judge signaled he will probably block the Trump administration from enforcing restrictions on asylum applications anywhere along the Mexican border while the legality of the policy announced in July is being challenged. © Thomson Reuters Central Americans, hoping to apply for asylum, wait on an international bridge at the border between Mexico and the U.S., in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico October 29, 2018. REUTERS/Jose Luis Gonzale U.S.

The supreme court ruled on Wednesday to allow the Trump administration to enforce nationwide restrictions that would prevent most Central The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower- court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed asylum restrictions by President Donald Trump 's administration to take effect , preventing most The US Supreme Court stayed a decision by a lower court two days earlier that had blocked the restrictions, which require migrants seeking asylum in the

Tigar’s first nationwide injunction, imposed in July, was even too much for the famously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That’s why the appeals court overturned Tigar’s order and limited his decision to only the states in its territory.

But Tigar wouldn’t give up. He reimposed his nationwide injunction because he held that several of the parties involved in the lawsuit operated in other states or even other countries. Part of the fault lies with the appeals court judges, who said that the district court could reimpose the nationwide injunction if it made the right findings. Tigar jumped at the opportunity.

Under normal circumstances, a district court judge would hold off imposing such a sweeping order, in order to allow the federal government to appeal his or her ruling and permit other courts to consider the issue. Indeed, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had already reached the opposite conclusion and upheld the asylum plan.

Tigar’s nationwide injunction prevents the federal government from addressing the crisis at the southern border and undermines the ability of the president and Congress to reach a political solution.

And a nationwide injunction is particularly damaging when the federal government is likely to win its case on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Hundreds of migrants waiting months to enter the U.S. may no longer be eligible for asylum

Hundreds of migrants waiting months to enter the U.S. may no longer be eligible for asylum TIJUANA, Mexico - It took William, a 39-year-old asylum seeker, four months to get from Cameroon to Tijuana. The journey took him through Nigeria, Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Guatemala before he finally reached the U.S.-Mexico border. He arrived in June - one month before the official cutoff date of a new policy that disqualifies any asylum seeker who passed through another country on the way to the southern border from asylum if that person did not apply in another country first. But even though William arrived to the border before that July 16 date, he hasn’t actually entered the United States.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed asylum restrictions by President Donald Trump 's administration to take effect , preventing most Central The diversion of the Pentagon funds to border wall construction was justified under a controversial emergency declaration made by Trump after

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed asylum restrictions by President Donald Trump 's administration to take effect , preventing most Central The diversion of the Pentagon funds to border wall construction was justified under a controversial emergency declaration made by Trump after

The Trump policy seeks to reduce groundless asylum claims, which according to the government constitute the great majority of such claims. Rather than fearing persecution in their home countries – as they claim when seeking asylum – most of the asylum seekers are actually economic migrants, seeking to game their way into the United States to get jobs and earn more money than they could at home.

Tigar absurdly found that the federal government had no foreign relations or national security reason to issue its asylum order, and ruled that as a result, the asylum policy had to go through a longer period of administrative development. This defies common sense.

Tigar also held that immigration law precludes the federal government from including additional qualifications for asylum, even though the law actually says the exact opposite.

In last year’s case of Hawaii v. Trump, the Supreme Court rejected almost identical arguments to uphold the Trump administration’s “travel ban” involving migrants from countries where terrorism could threaten the U.S.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Neither Republicans nor Democrats should want a single district judge to have the power to block a policy that is legal and produced by our elected leaders while a case is tied up in appeals in the federal courts for years.

Nationwide injunctions like the one issued by Tigar short-circuit our political system, blocking Congress and the president from carrying out their legitimate functions.

Such nationwide court orders by a single district judge destroy the careful organization of our justice system, which creates layers of appellate and Supreme Court review so that the federal judiciary can carefully consider all possible arguments and facts when it reaches a decision.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court should combat this end-run around the normal justice system by making clear that a district judge can only issue judgments that bind the parties within the geographic territory of his or her district.

The Trump administration and Congress should also amend the law governing federal courts to eliminate the misinterpretation of a judge’s powers. If the Supreme Court does not use this case as the opportunity to narrow injunctions, a single district court judge will be able to block the federal government from carrying out its constitutional functions. That is not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY JOHN YOO

Asylum chief reassigned after critical email publicized.
The head of asylum for US Citizenship and Immigration Services, John Lafferty, has been reassigned to deputy director of a service center in Virginia, according to an agency official. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); Lafferty's reassignment comes after an email was publicized in July that he had sent to asylum officers noting the challenges they were being asked to endure in order to implement a new asylum policy. It is unclear if Lafferty's move is connected to the email.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!