web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Illegal Immigration

Is Trump’s America Tougher on Asylum Than Other Western Countries?

BERLIN — The Supreme Court this week allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a plan to bar most migrants, particularly Central Americans, from seeking asylum in the United States.

Under President Trump’s plan, migrants cannot apply for asylum unless they have already tried — and failed — to receive it in one of the countries they passed through on their way to the United States. Guatemalans would be sent back to Mexico, for example, while people from El Salvador and Honduras would be returned to Guatemala.

Given how unsafe those countries can be for their own citizens — much less for migrants — the move has been portrayed by critics as another deviation from global rights standards under Mr. Trump. It follows his frequent attempts to expand barriers along the United States-Mexico border, as well as a deterioration in the treatment of migrants after they reach America.

But Mr. Trump’s plan is also in keeping with a wider international trend of curtailing the right to asylum, as Western nations try to curb migration from the global south, where the overwhelming majority of displaced people live.

To stifle record levels of migration to Europe in 2015 and 2016, the continent’s big powers reached deals with neighboring countries like Turkey to keep migrants from European shores. Australia, determined to stop maritime migration from Indonesia, now deports asylum seekers to its neighbors in the Pacific Ocean. Israel tried to send African migrants to Rwanda.

“It is currently the objective of most countries of the global north to prevent migrants” from entering their territory, said François Crépeau, a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on migrant rights and an expert on international refugee law at McGill University.

“Probably the U.S. are taking actions a bit further from what the Europeans are doing,” said Mr. Crépeau. “But the Europeans have also been very good at getting neighboring countries to do their dirty work.”

The United Nations refugee convention of 1951 provides the basis for American asylum laws. Unlike the Trump plan, it does not prevent refugees from traveling through several countries before landing in the United States and seeking asylum.

But it does ban signatories to the convention, like the United States, from deporting asylum seekers to countries where their safety is at risk, a process formally known as “refoulement.”

Most Western countries have usually interpreted this in a broad sense — refusing to deport people to countries that may not be at war, but still do not provide refugees with most of the protections required by the 1951 convention. Countries like Guatemala and Mexico, where homicide rates are high and migrants are often especially vulnerable to extortion, kidnapping and violence, could fall into that category, some experts say.

“There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that the countries of the Northern Triangle and Mexico itself are not safe, and that the people passing through those countries are at risk of human rights violations,” said Jeff Crisp, an expert on migration at Chatham House, a London-based research group, referring to the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

“Returning people to those countries could be considered in violation of the non-refoulement principle,” Dr. Crisp added.

Even so, there is no international court or authority that can overrule Mr. Trump’s plan. The Supreme Court’s ruling is provisional, and it is expected to take up the case again. But that will take many months.

The Trump administration is also pushing Mexico and Central American countries to agree to accept migrants. Guatemala has, but the plan must still be ratified by the Guatemalan Congress.

Mexico, by contrast, has said it won’t sign a so-called safe third country agreement with the United States to accept asylum claims from migrants who arrive on its soil, even if they are hoping to reach the United States.

“The court’s decision is astonishing,” Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Thursday about the Supreme Court ruling.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_114968270_fdd7b984-a0f2-4b3b-8fb2-5882dd053269-articleLarge Is Trump’s America Tougher on Asylum Than Other Western Countries? United States United Nations Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Spain Refugees and Displaced Persons Politics and Government Morocco Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration European Union Europe Australia Asylum, Right of Africa

One of the compounds of the Offshore Processing Center on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.CreditAshley Gilbertson for The New York Times

Since 2012, most asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat have been deported to processing centers in the nearby countries of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where they are held while their asylum applications are assessed.

Rights groups like Amnesty International say that asylum seekers at these centers face severe abuse. And even if granted asylum, the migrants are still barred from resettlement in Australia. Instead, they must live in Nauru, Papua New Guinea or, in a few cases, Cambodia.

Last year, Israel was forced to cancel a comparable deal with Rwanda, in which African asylum seekers would be deported from Tel Aviv to Kigali, after a public backlash.

The concept was pioneered in 1990s by Presidents George Bush and his successor, President Clinton, who authorized American Coast Guard vessels to intercept boats loaded with Haitian refugees and take them to Guantánamo Bay for processing.

Afghan migrants among the makeshift tents just outside Moria in the Greek Island of Lesbos.CreditMauricio Lima for The New York Times

European politicians have often spoken of sending migrants for processing in non-European countries, but the plan has never been successfully enacted.

In 2015 and 2016, more than one million migrants reached Greece from Turkey, most of them making their way to wealthier countries like Germany.

To stop this, the European Union pledged more than $6 billion to Turkey. In return, Turkey tightened up its border restrictions — and agreed to take back every migrant who subsequently landed in Greece.

Turkey did cut migration flows to Europe drastically, but only a small proportion of migrants who continued to land in Greece have been sent back. Migrants still have the opportunity to apply for asylum in Greece, or for relocation to other European countries, and many do so successfully. The Greek asylum system operates independently and is not beholden to the political agreement between the European Union and Turkey.

Meanwhile, migrants reaching Italy from Libya, another major gateway to Europe, are not returned because the country is still at war and does not recognize the 1951 convention.

People trying to reach Spain through its enclaves in North Africa are often forced back to Morocco without being given the chance to apply for asylum. But those who manage to cross the border into the enclaves undetected are usually allowed to lodge an asylum claim in Spain, though they are often sent back once their applications are rejected months later.

In theory, migrants are supposed to lodge an asylum claim as soon as they reach one of the 28 member states of the European Union. Those who don’t are liable to be returned to the country where they first entered the bloc — usually Greece, Italy or Spain — because European Union members theoretically trust one another to uphold the 1951 convention and treat refugees fairly.

But again, the system doesn’t quite work like that in reality. Sometimes it’s hard to prove that applicants passed through Greece on their way to, say, Germany. And in recent years, countries like Germany and Sweden have suspended returns to some members of the European Union, like Hungary and Greece, because of concerns about the fairness of their asylum systems.

Asylum seekers at the United Nations compound in Niamey, Niger.CreditDmitry Kostyukov for The New York Times

If migrants reach Europe from Libya, they are allowed to lodge an asylum claim on European soil. But some people who haven’t left Libya yet have been encouraged to fly instead to Niger, where they can apply for asylum in Europe from a country of relative safety. A similar arrangement was recently brokered with Rwanda, but has yet to formally begin.

The process is ostensibly a humanitarian one: It aims to help migrants escape war-torn Libya, where they are often prey to kidnapping, conscription, air raids, abuse and forced labor, without needing to brave the dangerous sea crossing to Italy.

But critics argue that few of them will in practice be ever resettled in Europe.

Like Mr. Trump, European governments have also sought to curb migration by building physical barriers along their borders. Greece has a fence lining its border with Turkey. Spain has several on its enclaves’ borders with Morocco. And Hungary built one on its border with Serbia.

In addition to its deal with Turkey, the European Union and its members have often paid third parties with checkered rights records to stop migrants from reaching Europe. The bloc pays Niger to throttle migration. Spain has a deal with Morocco. And Italy enlisted Libyan militias to stifle migration across the Mediterranean.

Asylum seekers in Greece and Hungary are also mostly confined in squalid facilities. On the Greek island of Lesbos, over 10,000 people are housed in a camp built for 3,100. In Hungary, officials have repeatedly denied food for several days to dozens of asylum seekers, including children.

One notable difference between Mr. Trump and his European counterparts is the way they speak publicly about migrants. With the exception of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s former interior minister, European government officials have largely avoided using provocative language to stir xenophobia — while still trying to block migrants from European territory.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Is Trump’s America Tougher on Asylum Than Other Western Countries?

BERLIN — The Supreme Court this week allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a plan to bar most migrants, particularly Central Americans, from seeking asylum in the United States.

Under President Trump’s plan, migrants cannot apply for asylum unless they have already tried — and failed — to receive it in one of the countries they passed through on their way to the United States. Guatemalans would be sent back to Mexico, for example, while people from El Salvador and Honduras would be returned to Guatemala.

Given how unsafe those countries can be for their own citizens — much less for migrants — the move has been portrayed by critics as another deviation from global rights standards under Mr. Trump. It follows his frequent attempts to expand barriers along the United States-Mexico border, as well as a deterioration in the treatment of migrants after they reach America.

But Mr. Trump’s plan is also in keeping with a wider international trend of curtailing the right to asylum, as Western nations try to curb migration from the global south, where the overwhelming majority of displaced people live.

To stifle record levels of migration to Europe in 2015 and 2016, the continent’s big powers reached deals with neighboring countries like Turkey to keep migrants from European shores. Australia, determined to stop maritime migration from Indonesia, now deports asylum seekers to its neighbors in the Pacific Ocean. Israel tried to send African migrants to Rwanda.

“It is currently the objective of most countries of the global north to prevent migrants” from entering their territory, said François Crépeau, a former United Nations Special Rapporteur on migrant rights and an expert on international refugee law at McGill University.

“Probably the U.S. are taking actions a bit further from what the Europeans are doing,” said Mr. Crépeau. “But the Europeans have also been very good at getting neighboring countries to do their dirty work.”

The United Nations refugee convention of 1951 provides the basis for American asylum laws. Unlike the Trump plan, it does not prevent refugees from traveling through several countries before landing in the United States and seeking asylum.

But it does ban signatories to the convention, like the United States, from deporting asylum seekers to countries where their safety is at risk, a process formally known as “refoulement.”

Most Western countries have usually interpreted this in a broad sense — refusing to deport people to countries that may not be at war, but still do not provide refugees with most of the protections required by the 1951 convention. Countries like Guatemala and Mexico, where homicide rates are high and migrants are often especially vulnerable to extortion, kidnapping and violence, could fall into that category, some experts say.

“There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that the countries of the Northern Triangle and Mexico itself are not safe, and that the people passing through those countries are at risk of human rights violations,” said Jeff Crisp, an expert on migration at Chatham House, a London-based research group, referring to the Central American nations of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

“Returning people to those countries could be considered in violation of the non-refoulement principle,” Dr. Crisp added.

Even so, there is no international court or authority that can overrule Mr. Trump’s plan. The Supreme Court’s ruling is provisional, and it is expected to take up the case again. But that will take many months.

The Trump administration is also pushing Mexico and Central American countries to agree to accept migrants. Guatemala has, but the plan must still be ratified by the Guatemalan Congress.

Mexico, by contrast, has said it won’t sign a so-called safe third country agreement with the United States to accept asylum claims from migrants who arrive on its soil, even if they are hoping to reach the United States.

“The court’s decision is astonishing,” Mexico’s foreign minister, Marcelo Ebrard, said Thursday about the Supreme Court ruling.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_114968270_fdd7b984-a0f2-4b3b-8fb2-5882dd053269-articleLarge Is Trump’s America Tougher on Asylum Than Other Western Countries? United States United Nations Trump, Donald J Supreme Court (US) Spain Refugees and Displaced Persons Politics and Government Morocco Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration European Union Europe Australia Asylum, Right of Africa

One of the compounds of the Offshore Processing Center on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.CreditAshley Gilbertson for The New York Times

Since 2012, most asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat have been deported to processing centers in the nearby countries of Nauru and Papua New Guinea, where they are held while their asylum applications are assessed.

Rights groups like Amnesty International say that asylum seekers at these centers face severe abuse. And even if granted asylum, the migrants are still barred from resettlement in Australia. Instead, they must live in Nauru, Papua New Guinea or, in a few cases, Cambodia.

Last year, Israel was forced to cancel a comparable deal with Rwanda, in which African asylum seekers would be deported from Tel Aviv to Kigali, after a public backlash.

The concept was pioneered in 1990s by Presidents George Bush and his successor, President Clinton, who authorized American Coast Guard vessels to intercept boats loaded with Haitian refugees and take them to Guantánamo Bay for processing.

Afghan migrants among the makeshift tents just outside Moria in the Greek Island of Lesbos.CreditMauricio Lima for The New York Times

European politicians have often spoken of sending migrants for processing in non-European countries, but the plan has never been successfully enacted.

In 2015 and 2016, more than one million migrants reached Greece from Turkey, most of them making their way to wealthier countries like Germany.

To stop this, the European Union pledged more than $6 billion to Turkey. In return, Turkey tightened up its border restrictions — and agreed to take back every migrant who subsequently landed in Greece.

Turkey did cut migration flows to Europe drastically, but only a small proportion of migrants who continued to land in Greece have been sent back. Migrants still have the opportunity to apply for asylum in Greece, or for relocation to other European countries, and many do so successfully. The Greek asylum system operates independently and is not beholden to the political agreement between the European Union and Turkey.

Meanwhile, migrants reaching Italy from Libya, another major gateway to Europe, are not returned because the country is still at war and does not recognize the 1951 convention.

People trying to reach Spain through its enclaves in North Africa are often forced back to Morocco without being given the chance to apply for asylum. But those who manage to cross the border into the enclaves undetected are usually allowed to lodge an asylum claim in Spain, though they are often sent back once their applications are rejected months later.

In theory, migrants are supposed to lodge an asylum claim as soon as they reach one of the 28 member states of the European Union. Those who don’t are liable to be returned to the country where they first entered the bloc — usually Greece, Italy or Spain — because European Union members theoretically trust one another to uphold the 1951 convention and treat refugees fairly.

But again, the system doesn’t quite work like that in reality. Sometimes it’s hard to prove that applicants passed through Greece on their way to, say, Germany. And in recent years, countries like Germany and Sweden have suspended returns to some members of the European Union, like Hungary and Greece, because of concerns about the fairness of their asylum systems.

Asylum seekers at the United Nations compound in Niamey, Niger.CreditDmitry Kostyukov for The New York Times

If migrants reach Europe from Libya, they are allowed to lodge an asylum claim on European soil. But some people who haven’t left Libya yet have been encouraged to fly instead to Niger, where they can apply for asylum in Europe from a country of relative safety. A similar arrangement was recently brokered with Rwanda, but has yet to formally begin.

The process is ostensibly a humanitarian one: It aims to help migrants escape war-torn Libya, where they are often prey to kidnapping, conscription, air raids, abuse and forced labor, without needing to brave the dangerous sea crossing to Italy.

But critics argue that few of them will in practice be ever resettled in Europe.

Like Mr. Trump, European governments have also sought to curb migration by building physical barriers along their borders. Greece has a fence lining its border with Turkey. Spain has several on its enclaves’ borders with Morocco. And Hungary built one on its border with Serbia.

In addition to its deal with Turkey, the European Union and its members have often paid third parties with checkered rights records to stop migrants from reaching Europe. The bloc pays Niger to throttle migration. Spain has a deal with Morocco. And Italy enlisted Libyan militias to stifle migration across the Mediterranean.

Asylum seekers in Greece and Hungary are also mostly confined in squalid facilities. On the Greek island of Lesbos, over 10,000 people are housed in a camp built for 3,100. In Hungary, officials have repeatedly denied food for several days to dozens of asylum seekers, including children.

One notable difference between Mr. Trump and his European counterparts is the way they speak publicly about migrants. With the exception of Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary and Matteo Salvini, Italy’s former interior minister, European government officials have largely avoided using provocative language to stir xenophobia — while still trying to block migrants from European territory.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Amid Absolute Absurdity, Thursday’s Debate Spotlighted America as a Shining City Upon a Hill

Westlake Legal Group usa-1149896_1280-620x410 Amid Absolute Absurdity, Thursday’s Debate Spotlighted America as a Shining City Upon a Hill Uncategorized Liberty immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections debate Dave Rubin Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020

 

 

During Thursday night’s Democratic debate — due to which Dave Rubin lamented he picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue — there was, as expected, mucho goofiness.

Our rich Uncle Bernie called Trump the most dangerous president in history:

And Beto O’Rourke — who seems absolutely hellbent on losing as steeply as is mathematically possible — taped what BlazeTV called a campaign ad for Donald Trump. The anti-privileged millionaire privileged millionaire vowed to take away your hunting rifles because, prior to now, “they’ve” been allowing you to shoot each other:

But there was at least one great thing offered during Thursday night’s showout blowout: Andrew Yang’s truly American story, about an actual immigrant participating in actual immigration — that would be, rather than what many Democrats and media figures have been inaccurately calling “immigration,” which is in fact its opposite.

In a bizarre move, the term has of late been employed to mean “choosing to not take part in our immigration system.”

But Andrew conjured it correctly. His origins are inspiring:

“My father grew up on a peanut farm in Asia with no floor. And now, his son is running for president. That is the immigration story that we have to be able to share with the American people.”

Andrew truly is proof that the American dream is alive and well for those who believe in a better life — in this greatest country on earth, what Ronald Reagan called “a shining city upon a hill”:

Being that — were he to receive the nomination — he would ultimately face the GOP incumbent, Andrew understandably tried to contrast himself with Trump. Unfortunately, he did so in a way that made absolutely no sense, given that the purpose of a border barrier is to prevent people from sneaking into the country, not keep people from actually immigrating:

“[I] am the opposite of Donald Trump in many ways. He says, ‘Build a wall;’ I’m going to say to immigrants, ‘Come to America, because if you come here, your son or daughter can run for president. The water’s great.’”

A wall doesn’t keep out immigrants; immigrants come in through immigration. Oh well, it was a Democratic debate; rightfulness could only last so long.

Nonetheless, his story is inspiring. And here’s a bonus: While some on the far Left — including the mayor of New York — have claimed America “was never great”…

…Andrew praised the U.S. and spoke of its “continued” success:

“This country has been a magnet for human capital for generations. If we lose that, we lose something integral to our continued success.”

America is indeed a nation of immigrants, and Andrew Yang is a reminder of that.

It’d be great to see more similar moments during the debates; lamentably, we’re more likely to hear Julián Castro champion taxpayer-funded abortions for men who would otherwise eject infants from their peeholes(?):

Goobers gonna goob.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

The Fight Continues: Arnold Schwarzenegger Claims President Trump Is In Love With Him

Joy Behar Knows: If The Hurricane Had Hit A Country Full Of Only White People, Trump Would Let Them All Come Here

A Television Icon Laments America’s Divide, But There’s A Greater Lesson – A Forgotten One We Learned Long Ago

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.


If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Amid Absolute Absurdity, Thursday’s Debate Spotlighted America as a Shining City Upon a Hill appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group usa-1149896_1280-300x199 Amid Absolute Absurdity, Thursday’s Debate Spotlighted America as a Shining City Upon a Hill Uncategorized Liberty immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story elections debate Dave Rubin Culture Campaigns Beto O'Rourke Andrew Yang Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Is Really Mad Her Colleagues Green Lit Trump’s Asylum Policy

Westlake Legal Group 2019-supreme-court-620x317 Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Is Really Mad Her Colleagues Green Lit Trump’s Asylum Policy Supreme Court Stay Politics overturned overreach Lifted Justice Sotomayer Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats border asylum 9th Circuit

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a formal group portrait to include the new Associate Justice, top row, far right, at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, Friday, Nov. 30, 2018. Seated from left: Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Standing behind from left: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

There’s been some rapid fire developments involving President Trump’s new asylum rules, which require seekers to apply in the first safe country they come to. This is to prevent economic migrants from country shopping and abusing the already overwhelmed asylum process. Seems like common sense, right?

Well, if you are a judge on the 9th Circuit, not so much. Judge Tigar originally put a nationwide injunction in place. Then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him. Then he simply put the injunction back in place. The Supreme Court had seen enough though and finally made a ruling vacating the entirety of the injunction and slapping Judge Tigar back down to earth.

While the decision was 7-2, this didn’t sit too well with Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee to the highest court. She ranted against her colleagues for the decision they made.

“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”

You know what this sounds like? A baseless emotional appeal. The vast majority of asylum seekers are not escaping persecution. For those that are, Mexico provides a safe haven for them to evade immediate danger. The point of asylum is not to go find a better life and opportunity. It’s to prevent bodily harm. Trump’s new policy, partnering with the Mexican authorities, does just that.

We simply do not have the resources to accept every single person who wants to claim asylum. Especially not when well over 80% of cases are fraudulent.

Sotomayor also slammed the Trump administration for requesting the Supreme Court to allow the rule when lower courts ruled against the move. “Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal,” she wrote. “Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively.”

“This is an extraordinary request,” Sotomayor continued. “Unfortunately, the Court acquiesces. Because I do not believe the Government has met its weighty burden for such relief, I would deny the stay.”

When you’ve got a judge going completely rogue in the 9th Circuit, flaunting even the decision of the appeals court, how exactly does that not meet the burden for the Supreme Court to step in? Heck, that’s part of the reason the Supreme Court exists. To be the final arbitrator of such issues.

Past that though, you know what you don’t see in Sotomayor’s angry dissent? An appeal to the law. Nowhere does she list out why Judge Tigar’s decision was proper in the first place. She doesn’t explain why the DOJ is wrong to seek relief in the face of an activist judge that won’t obey higher rulings. Instead, all you get are emotional ravings.

That may be fine for political punditry. It’s not fine for the Supreme Court. Sotomayor is a partisan actor. Nothing more. Every single decision she makes is based on whether it follows liberal orthodoxy. While the left complains about “right wing” judges simply following the constitution, the left wing judges on the court continue to scoff at the plain text of the law in order to bend the country to their preferred outcome.

So while Sotomayor may be taking aim at her colleagues, her statement says far more about herself than it does them.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Is Really Mad Her Colleagues Green Lit Trump’s Asylum Policy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group sotomayor-300x122 Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor Is Really Mad Her Colleagues Green Lit Trump’s Asylum Policy Supreme Court Stay Politics overturned overreach Lifted Justice Sotomayer Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats border asylum 9th Circuit   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Ninth Circuit Judge and Gives President Trump a Huge Win On Amnesty

Westlake Legal Group shutterstock_184818761-620x411 Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Ninth Circuit Judge and Gives President Trump a Huge Win On Amnesty william barr Sonia Sotomayor SCOTUS Politics northern district of california ninth circuit law jon tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Courts California amnesty Allow Media Exception

<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-184818761/stock-photo-supreme-court-building.html?src=oBS1uII_5StBhFBm1uHCeQ-1-4<Please credit Brandon Bourdages at Shutterstock.

We’ve chronicled the campaign of lawfare that the left has conducted against this administration for over two and one half years now. Whenever they’ve lost actual power, via changes in laws or changes in policy, they’ve toddled off to some nice tame and stump-broke progressive judge who will take control of the entire United States government by issuing a nationwide injunction. The White House and Attorney General have let it be known that they are well aware of the abuse of authority by federal judges who illegally make decisions for the entire nation based on the one case before them. The Supreme Court has let it be known that it’s majority, too, is becoming annoyed at federal judges acting as a combined legislative/executive branch and imposing their policy preferences on the country rather than ruling on matters of law.

The matter be close to coming to a head on the issue of the new amnesty rules promulgated by the Department of Justice. Basically, they say that if you come to the US seeking amnesty and you have transited any other nation or nations en route that you must have applied for amnesty in at least one of them and been turned down.

This should have been a fairly uncontroversial rule but because OrangeManBad groups with no apparent standing went to a federal judge, Jon Tigar, who is naturally situated in San Francisco. Tigar his so hostile to the administration that he gained the distinction of having President Trump label him an Obama judge. This caused the Lido deck cruise bunch to have a cow and provoked Chief Justice John Roberts to nonsensically proclaim that there were no Obama judges or Trump judges. Anyway Tigar ordered a nationwide injunction. The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Surprisingly, in a fit of sanity, the Ninth Circuit lifted the nationwide injunction, left it in place for the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further fact finding. But, the Justice Department also took the nearly unprecedented step of asking the Supreme Court to take up the case immediately. Finding facts happened and in short order, two days ago, Tigar issued yet another nationwide injunction. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit again limited the effect to that circuit. But today the Supreme Court had had enough Resistance bullsh**.

In what appears to be a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court removed the injunction and let the regulation go into effect nationwide. The order removes the injunction through trial and appeal to the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit rules against the administration, the stay of any injunction remains in place until the Supreme Court either declines to hear the government’s appeal or when the Supreme Court makes a decision.

There is more than a little butt-hurt from the self-styled “wise Latina” but who really cares?

This is probably as much a shot across the bows of Resistance judges as anything else. It seems that the Supreme Court, for the most part, has heard Barr’s complaint and decided to do something about single federal judges setting national policy. If that is the case, then this has gone a long way towards establishing a bit of humility among our black-robed masters and restoring the rule of law.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Ninth Circuit Judge and Gives President Trump a Huge Win On Amnesty appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group shutterstock_184818761-300x199 Supreme Court Slaps Down Rogue Ninth Circuit Judge and Gives President Trump a Huge Win On Amnesty william barr Sonia Sotomayor SCOTUS Politics northern district of california ninth circuit law jon tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Courts California amnesty Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ninth Circuit Judge Hands Trump A Significant Win; Reverses Previous Day’s Overreach By Activist Judge

Westlake Legal Group migrant-caravan-adjusted-cropped-AP-620x328 Ninth Circuit Judge Hands Trump A Significant Win; Reverses Previous Day’s Overreach By Activist Judge Third Country Asylum Rule Supreme Court President Trump Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals National Security migrants Judicial jon tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Activist Judges 2020

Members of a US-bound migrant caravan stand on a road after federal police briefly blocked their way outside the town of Arriaga, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. Hundreds of Mexican federal officers carrying plastic shields had blocked the caravan from advancing toward the United States, after several thousand of the migrants turned down the chance to apply for refugee status and obtain a Mexican offer of benefits. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco has 29 seats. Seven of those are filled by Trump appointees bringing the total of GOP appointed judges to thirteen. It appears that the Trump administration’s efforts to appoint conservative judges is starting to have some effect.

On Monday, District Court Judge Jon Tigar (Northern District of California), an Obama appointee, reinstated a nationwide ban on Trump’s Third Country Asylum rule. This policy prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S. border unless they have already done so in Mexico or another third country. Prior to this, the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the preliminary injunction against this policy was only enforceable within the Ninth Circuit. My colleague Bonchie posted about this on Tuesday here.

On Tuesday, however, the Ninth Circuit issued an administrative order reversing Tigar’s nationwide ban. Yesterday’s order limits the ban to states over which the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction. This includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon, and Washington.

Fox News reports:

Tigar first blocked the asylum policy in July after a lawsuit by groups that help asylum seekers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then partially limited the impact of Tigar’s injunction.

That meant the policy was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona but not in New Mexico and Texas.

In his ruling Monday, Tigar circled back, and stressed a “need to maintain uniform immigration policy” and found that nonprofit organizations such as Al Otro Lado don’t know where asylum seekers who enter the U.S. will end up living and making their case to remain in the country.

Tiger, citing new evidence, on Monday issued a second nationwide injunction.

“The court recognized there is grave danger facing asylum-seekers along the entire stretch of the southern border,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

Tiger’s activism begs the question, should a highly partisan district court judge, an unelected federal official, have the power to set national immigration policy? Throughout Trump’s presidency, liberal judges have repeatedly acted to reverse his administration’s policies. These judges have more power than most elected officials do. This situation interferes with the President’s ability to govern and must be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Much to the left’s dismay, Trump’s policies are making a measurable difference. Despite the best efforts of the bleeding hearts, border apprehensions in August were down 56% to 64,000 from their peak in May when they reached 144,000.

Are you listening Justice Roberts?

The post Ninth Circuit Judge Hands Trump A Significant Win; Reverses Previous Day’s Overreach By Activist Judge appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group migrant-caravan-adjusted-cropped-AP-300x159 Ninth Circuit Judge Hands Trump A Significant Win; Reverses Previous Day’s Overreach By Activist Judge Third Country Asylum Rule Supreme Court President Trump Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals National Security migrants Judicial jon tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception Activist Judges 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway

Westlake Legal Group MigrantFamilyBorder-620x317 Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway Politics political partisan obama judge Judge Tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats axios Asylum Policy 9th circuit court of appeals

Migrant families cross the Rio Grande to get illegally across the border into the United States, to turn themselves in to authorities and ask for asylum, next to the Paso del Norte international bridge, near El Paso, Texas, Friday, May 31, 2019. The Border Patrol said it has encountered more than 180 groups of over 100 people since October, compared with 13 in the previous 12-month period and two the year before. (AP Photo/Christian Torrez)

It’s almost like the federal judiciary have no respect for constitutional dictations at all.

If you recall, Trump won a surprising victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month when they ruled in favor of him implementing new asylum rules that he clearly has the constitutional authority to enact. Those revolved around requiring migrants to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in before proceeding to the United States. This is not only common sense, it’s the world standard and the recommendation of the United Nations (who the left constantly tells us we should listen to). Asylum is not for country shopping. It’s to remove yourself from supposed immediate danger, nothing more.

Well, the very same judge who was slapped down originally decided to throw up a middle finger at the higher court that overruled him previously. He made the same judgement again, blocking Trump’s asylum policies on a national level.

This per Axios.

A California federal judge re-issued a nationwide injunction on Monday, blocking the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who have not first applied for refuge in a “third country” they’ve traveled through.

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed federal Judge Jon Tigar’s first preliminary injunction to apply only to the 9th circuit. The move allowed the Trump administration to enforce the policy — which would all but deny asylum to Central American migrants — in Texas and New Mexico. The policy will now be blocked nationwide once again.

To recap, this is a single, low level federal judge who’s jurisdiction does not expand past the 9th circuit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made that clear by narrowing his original ruling and removing the nationwide injunction. What’s he do? Puts it right back in place with no better of an explanation for doing so.

Judge Tigar is of course an Obama judge, something I’m assured doesn’t exist by Justice John Roberts. This is just more proof of how wrong he is though.

The judge in question here is ruling completely based on partisan politics. There is no constitutional case for overriding the President’s delegated powers to control immigration policy, nor do non-citizens have a right to claim irreparable harm for him doing so, thereby forcing nationwide injunctions. By that logic, every single part of the constitution could be suspended to prevent some form of irreparable harm to someone on the globe. It’s nonsensical garbage and it’s exactly why nationwide injunctions are terrible policy for the courts. They also have no basis in the delegated powers of the judiciary, seemingly being invented out of nowhere and being in direct contradiction with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

But as I’ve said many times, this will never stop until Justice Roberts gets some courage and deals with this issue. The Supreme Court needs to take on the question of nationwide injunctions and stop this idiocy. Nowhere in our system of governance was it meant for a single, un-elected judge to dictate policy for the entire country. As long as the highest court sits on its hand though, judges will keep going rogue.

Hopefully the 9th Circuit slaps this guy down hard again. They can’t be to happy about being so directly defied.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group illegal-aliens-in-detention-300x200 Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway Politics political partisan obama judge Judge Tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats axios Asylum Policy 9th circuit court of appeals   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway

Westlake Legal Group MigrantFamilyBorder-620x317 Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway Politics political partisan obama judge Judge Tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats axios Asylum Policy 9th circuit court of appeals

Migrant families cross the Rio Grande to get illegally across the border into the United States, to turn themselves in to authorities and ask for asylum, next to the Paso del Norte international bridge, near El Paso, Texas, Friday, May 31, 2019. The Border Patrol said it has encountered more than 180 groups of over 100 people since October, compared with 13 in the previous 12-month period and two the year before. (AP Photo/Christian Torrez)

It’s almost like the federal judiciary have no respect for constitutional dictations at all.

If you recall, Trump won a surprising victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month when they ruled in favor of him implementing new asylum rules that he clearly has the constitutional authority to enact. Those revolved around requiring migrants to apply for asylum in the first safe country they arrive in before proceeding to the United States. This is not only common sense, it’s the world standard and the recommendation of the United Nations (who the left constantly tells us we should listen to). Asylum is not for country shopping. It’s to remove yourself from supposed immediate danger, nothing more.

Well, the very same judge who was slapped down originally decided to throw up a middle finger at the higher court that overruled him previously. He made the same judgement again, blocking Trump’s asylum policies on a national level.

This per Axios.

A California federal judge re-issued a nationwide injunction on Monday, blocking the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who have not first applied for refuge in a “third country” they’ve traveled through.

Last month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed federal Judge Jon Tigar’s first preliminary injunction to apply only to the 9th circuit. The move allowed the Trump administration to enforce the policy — which would all but deny asylum to Central American migrants — in Texas and New Mexico. The policy will now be blocked nationwide once again.

To recap, this is a single, low level federal judge who’s jurisdiction does not expand past the 9th circuit. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals made that clear by narrowing his original ruling and removing the nationwide injunction. What’s he do? Puts it right back in place with no better of an explanation for doing so.

Judge Tigar is of course an Obama judge, something I’m assured doesn’t exist by Justice John Roberts. This is just more proof of how wrong he is though.

The judge in question here is ruling completely based on partisan politics. There is no constitutional case for overriding the President’s delegated powers to control immigration policy, nor do non-citizens have a right to claim irreparable harm for him doing so, thereby forcing nationwide injunctions. By that logic, every single part of the constitution could be suspended to prevent some form of irreparable harm to someone on the globe. It’s nonsensical garbage and it’s exactly why nationwide injunctions are terrible policy for the courts. They also have no basis in the delegated powers of the judiciary, seemingly being invented out of nowhere and being in direct contradiction with the Judiciary Act of 1789.

But as I’ve said many times, this will never stop until Justice Roberts gets some courage and deals with this issue. The Supreme Court needs to take on the question of nationwide injunctions and stop this idiocy. Nowhere in our system of governance was it meant for a single, un-elected judge to dictate policy for the entire country. As long as the highest court sits on its hand though, judges will keep going rogue.

Hopefully the 9th Circuit slaps this guy down hard again. They can’t be to happy about being so directly defied.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group illegal-aliens-in-detention-300x200 Federal Judge Gives Middle Finger to Higher Court Ruling, Blocks Trump’s New Asylum Policy Again Anyway Politics political partisan obama judge Judge Tigar immigration Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats axios Asylum Policy 9th circuit court of appeals   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Illegal border crossings drop hugely in August

Westlake Legal Group border-crossing Illegal border crossings drop hugely in August The Blog mexican border Immigration and Customs Enforcement Illegal Immigration customs and border protection arrests

It’s a mystery for the ages. Preliminary figures from immigration enforcement agencies indicate that the number of illegal border crossings in August was down. And not just down by a little, either. We’re talking about a roughly 60% decrease from the largest surge back in May. How on Earth did that happen? Politico has a few guesses.

President Donald Trump’s plan to force Mexico to stem the flow of migrants across the southwest border of the U.S. appears to be working.

Border arrests, a metric for illegal crossings, plummeted to 51,000 in August, according to preliminary government figures obtained by POLITICO Wednesday, down more than 60 percent since a peak in May. And border watchers say it’s largely because of an agreement Trump struck with Mexico in June. Mexican authorities, backed by the newly formed National Guard, are now cracking down on migrants traversing Mexico’s southern border with Guatemala, monitoring river crossings and stopping buses carrying migrants from Central America through Mexico. At the same time, the U.S. is making tens of thousands of asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their applications are considered.

Before we start breaking out the party balloons, let’s keep in mind that while this is a welcome improvement, 51,000 illegal border-crossing attempts is still far higher than should be acceptable. That works out to roughly 1,650 per day. Our immigration courts can’t process that many cases per day, so we’re still losing ground, though not as quickly.

Two other cautionary notes should be included here. First of all, we’ll have to wait and see if these lower levels are sustainable or if this was just a blip in the normal trends. Also, July and August are traditionally times when illegal crossings dip because of the high heat and harsh conditions in much of northern Mexico during the summer months. If we keep seeing figures like this into November and December we’ll have more reason to be confident.

But with all that said, this is still good news and demonstrates that the new policies arranged with the government of Mexico are having a positive effect. They’re working to cut off the flow of illegal migrants near their own southern border and keeping more migrants on their side of the border while they await court hearings. The word seems to be getting around in Central and South America that entering the United States illegally isn’t as simple as it used to be and it might not be worth the trip.

Still, the missing piece of the puzzle is the wall. A daunting physical barrier channeling people toward legal crossing points could still cut those numbers down massively. We don’t need to have the entire border walled off all at once. Some of the more inhospitable areas see very little traffic. But we could be doing far better than we are now. And we should make sure that happens.

The post Illegal border crossings drop hugely in August appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group border-crossing-300x153 Illegal border crossings drop hugely in August The Blog mexican border Immigration and Customs Enforcement Illegal Immigration customs and border protection arrests   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Border apprehensions dropped 30% in August

Westlake Legal Group border-crossing Border apprehensions dropped 30% in August The Blog Remain in Mexico program Illegal Immigration border

Some good news on the border. Apprehensions of illegal immigrants dropped again in August, making this the third straight month of decline. From Politico:

Border Patrol arrested roughly 51,000 migrants in August, a 30 percent drop from the previous month…

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan addressed the falling arrests Wednesday during a press conference with Trump at the Oval Office. McAleenan said border arrests had been more than halved in August compared with the May peak, but told reporters that finalized statistics were being compiled and would be released next week.

Trump praised Mexico’s recent efforts to halt migration during the press conference, which centered on the response to Hurricane Dorian as it approached the Carolinas.

“The numbers are really good,” Trump said of the still-unofficial August arrest figures. “I want to thank again the country of Mexico. They have 25,000 soldiers now right protecting our border. And they’ve done a fantastic job, so we appreciate that very much.”

The 30% drop in August follows a 24% drop in July. However, the current numbers are still above average for the past two years. What’s significant about this drop is the timing. If you look at a graph of border apprehensions you’ll notice they follow a seasonal pattern, often peaking in the spring and then dropping off during the hot summer months. But the numbers often pick up again in August and September. As Politico notes, “Border arrests rose from July to August in eight of the last 10 years, which suggests the current drop is not related to recent historical patterns.” So while we’re not out of the woods yet, if we see one more month of declines (for September) then we’ll definitely be bucking a trend.

Most observers agree that Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy has a lot to do with the change. That policy sends asylum seekers back to Mexico to await a decision rather than releasing them into the United States. In July the Texas Tribune reported there was some evidence that asylum seekers sent back to Mexico were choosing to give up and go home.

One potential sign that many are giving up: a government official in Washington familiar with the MPP initiative said an estimated 40 percent of the migrants returned to Juarez, Mexico, from El Paso did not show up for their initial court hearings. The official did not have permission to comment on the record and spoke on condition of anonymity.

One major reason people might be giving up: Gang violence connected to the drug trade has spiked in Mexico recently with a record-setting 33,000 murders recorded in 2018. Some Central American migrants are deciding they are better off heading home.

A majority of the people making asylum claims will not be found eligible because they are, in fact, economic migrants. You can see that in this PBS News Hour report published Wednesday. Also in this report, Sec. McAleenan says the number he is hoping to reach is about 20,000 apprehensions per month. That’s the point at which the Border Patrol will no longer trying to manage a crisis.

The post Border apprehensions dropped 30% in August appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group border-crossing-300x153 Border apprehensions dropped 30% in August The Blog Remain in Mexico program Illegal Immigration border   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com