Judge bars Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who enter illegally

Judge bars Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who enter illegally

Nov. 20, 2018 / 2:15 AM EST / Updated 4:11 AM EST
By Adam Edelman

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.

In a ruling issued late Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who is based in San Francisco, wrote that President Donald Trump’s "rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country" outside a port of entry “irreconcilably conflicts” with federal immigration laws and "the expressed intent of Congress."

"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, who was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by President Barack Obama, wrote.

The ruling agreed with legal groups that had sued the Trump administration claiming that U.S. immigration law allows people to seek asylum — even if they enter the country between official ports of entry.

Earlier this month, Trump signed a proclamation that will make it harder for immigrants to claim asylum if they are caught crossing the border between designated ports of entry, fulfilling a key midterm promise to crack down on undocumented immigrants crossing the Southwest border ahead of the expected arrival of migrant caravans heading for the U.S.

As a result of the Nov. 9 order, asylum-seekers who do not go through ports of entry were apprehended, detained and deported unless they met a higher bar, such as proving they would be tortured if they were sent home. Within hours, the American Civil Liberties Union sued to block the new restrictions, calling it "the asylum ban."

Senior administration officials told reporters on a conference call after the order was issued that the president had the legal authority to issue the order because of sections of immigration law that allow the president discretion over who is admitted into the United States — the same language the administration used to support its travel ban in court.

Under international law, however, asylum-seekers are permitted to make a claim regardless of where they enter.

In his ruling Monday — which will remain in effect for one month barring an appeal — Tigar said the Trump administration misused its authority to issue emergency regulations.

Tigar also agreed with claims made by the groups bringing the suit that immigrants affected by the ban would “suffer irreparable injury if the rule goes into effect.”

“Asylum seekers will be put at increased risk of violence and other harms at the border, and many will be deprived of meritorious asylum claims. The government offers nothing in support of the new rule that outweighs the need to avoid these harms,” he wrote.

As of Monday, 107 people detained between official crossings have sought asylum since Trump's order went into effect, according to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Customs and Border Protection.

Trump has argued that the recent caravans are a threat to national security.

According to The Associated Press, around 3,000 people from the first of the caravans have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego, California.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...egally-n938271

Judge bars US from enforcing Trump asylum ban

By nomaan merchant, associated press
HOUSTON — Nov 20, 2018, 10:36 AM ET

A federal judge has barred the Trump administration from refusing asylum to immigrants who cross the southern border illegally.

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on Nov. 9 circumventing immigration law, saying anyone who crossed the southern border between official ports of entry would be ineligible for asylum.

As the first of several caravans of migrants have started arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, Trump said the restrictions were necessary to stop what he's called a national security threat. He also sent thousands of active-duty troops to the border to back up immigration officials there.

But in his ruling Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar agreed with legal groups that immediately sued, arguing that U.S. immigration law clearly allows someone to seek asylum even if they enter the country between official ports of entry and temporarily barred the ruling from going into place while the case is heard.

"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," said Tigar, a nominee of former President Barack Obama.

It was the latest legal challenge to thwart the Trump administration's effort to harden the U.S.-Mexico border without Congress changing any laws, including an effort to try to detain migrant families in long-term facilities. Trump stopped family separations at the border earlier this year after a global outcry, but it was a federal judge who ruled the administration had to reunify the families.

Monday's ruling remains in effect for one month, barring an appeal. In limiting asylum, Trump used the same powers he used to impose a travel ban — the third try was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.

A joint statement by Homeland Security and the Justice Department said the Supreme Court had already shown the president had the legal right to restrict asylum.

"Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year," the departments said. "We look forward to continuing to defend the Executive Branch's legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border."

The regulations were put in place in part to stop what the government says are loopholes that allow thousands of people to avoid deportation. DHS estimates around 70,000 people a year claim asylum after crossing illegally. But — illegal crossings overall are well below historical highs from previous decades.

Tigar's ruling notes that federal law says someone may seek asylum if they have arrived in the United States, "whether or not at a designated port of arrival."

"Individuals are entitled to asylum if they cross between ports of entry," said Baher Azmy, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which sued the government alongside the American Civil Liberties Union. "It couldn't be clearer."

Around 3,000 people from the first of the caravans have arrived in Tijuana, Mexico, across the border from San Diego, California. U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Monday that it closed off northbound traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro crossing to install movable, wire-topped barriers after reports that some migrants were planning to rush through the lanes — but none did.

As of Monday, DHS said it had referred 107 people to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — people who had sought asylum between official crossings since Trump's order went into effect. Officials didn't say whether those people's cases were still progressing through other, more difficult avenues left to them after the proclamation.

Administration officials said the asylum law changes were meant to funnel migrants through official border crossings for speedy rulings instead of having them try to evade such crossings on the nearly 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) border.

But many border crossings such as San Ysidro already have extensive wait times. People are often forced to wait in shelters or outdoor camps on the Mexican side, sometimes for weeks.

ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said that some people seeking asylum cross between official ports because "they're in real danger," either in their countries of origin or in Mexico.

"We don't condone people entering between ports of entry, but Congress has made the decision that if they do, they still need to be allowed to apply for asylum," he said.

The U.S. military has deployed 5,800 active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border. Another 2,100 National Guard troops have also been deployed since April as part of a separate mission.

They are not allowed to detain illegal crossers.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...m-ban-59309545

Under international law, however, asylum-seekers are permitted to make a claim regardless of where they enter.




This is assuming they are going to be good boys and girls; not running off when they are supposed to appear in court; not inflating trivial claims; it doesn't assume they have been offered legal representation by practiced advocates; it is assuming that they are coming directly to a place to claim asylum, not scampering around the country illegally for years, being coached on how to stay, being smuggled by sympathizers.

Looks like San Francisco ACLU makes the law in this country.

Mark Krikorian






@MarkSKrikorian



"Unless Trump leverages his veto until Congress reiterates existing law – that courts have no jurisdiction over border security – he should just step down and allow the ACLU to run our border."


https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/10649...g&name=900x900





conservativereview.com





11:33 AM · Nov 20, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

Mark Krikorian






@MarkSKrikorian



Our accession to the UN refugee treaty in the 1960s was a surrender of sovereignty that seemed harmless at the time b/c it had no real consequences. Now it does, so it's time to pull out of the treaty.


https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/10649...g&name=900x900



conservativereview.com





11:32 AM · Nov 20, 2018 · Twitter Web Client

Asylum seekers should be expected to make a claim for protection at the first available opportunity in the first country of refuge. Asylum claimants should not forum shop or otherwise be allowed to pick and choose where they make their claim!

Ignore the court ruling just like Obama ignored Judge Hanon's ruling to stop issuing DACA/DAPA permits

DAPA is still here.

Get their names, round them up and BOOT them out!

They can make a "claim"...DENY that claim, they have NO burden of proof!

Load them on a BARGE and let the Navy ship them back to Central America!

As far SOUTH as you can dump them off!

BREAKING:Supreme Court rejects Trump plea to enforce asylum ban

REJECT them at the border...they have NO proof for asylum.

Set up a panel of Judges...STAMP DENIED...load on bus and send them back!

PROCESS THEM LIKE CATTLE...JUST HOW THEY GOT TO THE BORDER!