Thread: Judge orders deported asylum seekers to be returned to US, in Trump administration re

Judge orders deported asylum seekers to be returned to US, in Trump administration rebuke

By Bill Mears, Brooke Singman | Fox News
Published 1 hour ago

A federal judge on Wednesday took the extraordinary step of ordering that asylum seekers who sued after their deportation be returned to the U.S. to have their claims heard anew, ruling against the Trump administration's revised asylum policies.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington came a day after the same judge presided over a contentious sentencing hearing for former national security adviser Michael Flynn -- in which he questioned whether the ex-White House official committed “treason” and accused him of selling out the United States to foreign interests. He later delayed Flynn’s sentencing until 2019, as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

In his sweeping ruling Wednesday against the Trump administration's immigration policies, Sullivan said recent changes violated federal law.

“The Court holds that it has jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ challenges to the credible fear policies, that it has the authority to order the injunctive relief, and that, with the exception of two policies, the new credible fear policies are arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the immigration laws,” Sullivan concluded.

Sullivan went a big step further by ordering that “the government to return to the United States the plaintiffs who were unlawfully deported and to provide them with new credible fear determinations consistent with the immigration laws.”

In addition to returning asylum seekers to the U.S., Sullivan blocked the Trump administration policies from being further applied.

In response to the decision, Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford said: “Under the laws passed by Congress, asylum is only for those who have a legitimate fear of persecution on the basis of their race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Attorney General Sessions’ ruling in Matter of A-B- was about following that requirement. We are reviewing our options with regard to this ruling, and we will continue to restore the rule of law in our immigration system.”

The revised rules were announced by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the summer. The new policy made it harder for asylum seekers to make “credible fear claims” of domestic or gang-related violence back home, in expedited removal immigration proceedings.

"The vast majority of the current asylum claims are not valid," Sessions said in June.

Federal officials said they made changes to prevent fraud within the asylum system, though the policy also enabled speedy deportations that were later challenged.

A group of asylum seekers, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the Trump administration in federal court.

“This ruling is a defeat for the Trump administration’s all-out assault on the rights of asylum seekers,” Jennifer Chang Newell, managing attorney of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case, said in a statement Wednesday. “The government’s attempt to obliterate asylum protections is unlawful and inconsistent with our country’s longstanding commitment to provide protection to immigrants fleeing for their lives.”

The ACLU represented women who had endured “extensive persecution in the form of sexual and physical violence.”

“Judge Sullivan’s decision ensures that our asylum system remains open to refugees at our border, including those fleeing domestic violence and gang violence,” Eunice Lee, co-legal director of the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, said in a statement. “These individuals raise legitimate claims under U.S. and international law, and have an unequivocal right to seek asylum. I am thrilled that the court’s order upholds that right.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jud...tration-rebuke

NO!!!

Do the hearing via Skype and keep them out!

NO ASYLUM, THEY DO NOT QUALIFY!

GO GIVE THEM ASYLUM IN CHINA!

We are full. No room at the inns. We have too many in shelters now that should be returned to their countries. Safe haven at home and if they desire they could allow the useless United Nations to oversee and dictate to them. World citizenry is not acceptable to us.

Secure the borders and do not let foreign citizens cross illegally to make asylum claims. Tell Mexico no more and if they allow people entry, asylum claims are for there, not here. They can bear the costs. Too many nations are dumping their people and criminals on us to lighten their financial burdens, to receive remittances in return, and to remove poverty and crime.

The smugglers, drug cartels must be dealt with to stop the money making motive to smuggle people and drugs and whatever. Naturally, anyone who blocks their efforts is in danger but this illegal and dangerous operation must be curtailed.

Where's Jeff Sessions when we need him? Oh, that's right, Trump fired him!

You think this Judge would have ruled differently if Jeff Sessions had argued the case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jeff lost all Trump's cases on illegal immigration. Jeff even lost his own cases.

Originally Posted by Judy

You think this Judge would have ruled differently if Jeff Sessions had argued the case? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Jeff lost all Trump's cases on illegal immigration. Jeff even lost his own cases.

I'm sure Jeff Sessions knows what he done and why he done it. He was the one that reversed the status quo. What better person to defend against this judges ruling than the person that actually started following the law. I'm sure Sessions done his homework before reversing course.

So you think it's somehow Sessions fault that the 9th Circuit Court ruled repeatedly against Trump and Sessions in the past? We're talking about the most liberal court in the land here. You're not even making sense.

Originally Posted by MW

I'm sure Jeff Sessions knows what he done and why he done it. He was the one that reversed the status quo. What better person to defend against this judges ruling than the person that actually started following the law. I'm sure Sessions done his homework before reversing course.

So you think it's somehow Sessions fault that the 9th Circuit Court ruled repeatedly against Trump and Sessions in the past? We're talking about the most liberal court in the land here. You're not even making sense.

Well, why would it be Trump's fault and not Sessions fault who actually argued all the cases we've lost? You don't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Judy

Well, why would it be Trump's fault and not Sessions fault who actually argued all the cases we've lost? You don't make any sense.

Sessions was representing the U.S. Federal Government on Trump's signature issues. So yes, those losses were Trump's, Sessions, yours, and mine! Like I said, your completely oblivious that those losses came from the most liberal court in the land. Did you really expect the most liberal court in the land to side with Trump and Sessions on issues related to immigration?

By the way, you do realize that the DOJ has a lot of lawyers and that Sessions didn't personally deliver those arguments in cases before the 9th Circuit, don't you?

Yeah, I know all that stuff and whole lot more stuff, too, which is why I supported the White House's thinking to let the thing expire on June 15, 2017.

Originally Posted by Judy

Yeah, I know all that stuff and whole lot more stuff, too, which is why I supported the White House's thinking to let the thing expire on June 15, 2017.

How soon you forget. It was already proven on this forum that there never was an expiration date for the DACA program. I believe it was an article posted by JohnDoe2.