Supreme Court Rules on Asylum Limits Enforcement

Breaking News Judges Judicial Branch President Trump US News

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States. With Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order.

Supreme Court of The United States
Supreme Court of the United States

The justices’ order late Wednesday September 11th temporarily over rules a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new Trump administration asylum policy in some states on southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there. In other words if the first country they come is Mexico, they must seek asylum in that country and not continue on to the US. This rule makes sense to a lot of conservatives since the argument has always been these refuges are in danger and the first peaceful country they come to should be good enough for them to seek safety.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border. This will most likely force these people to seek asylum in Mexico and other southern countries.

The changes of U.S. policy that has been in place through many administrations. The Trump administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not obtain. Many believe the system is stressed enough from the process as it is and this should make way for more legitimate seekers. Ones that are truly in danger in their own country.

BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!”

President Donald Trump

Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,”

Justice Sotomayor

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. This is not a surprise that a judge from Tigar’s district blocked something to do with slowing the rush of migrants flooding the boarder and the system. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit. The 9th circuit has always, at least in recent years, has leaned to the left and been against many of Trump’s policies.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

It’s not clear how quickly the policy will be rolled out, and how exactly it fits in with the other efforts by the administration to restrict border crossings and tighten asylum rules.

For example, thousands of people are waiting on lists at border crossings in Mexico to claim asylum in the U.S. And more than 30,000 people have been turned back to Mexico to wait out their asylum claims.

Asylum seekers must pass an initial screening called a “credible fear” interview, a hurdle that a vast majority clear. Under the new policy, they would fail the test unless they sought asylum in at least one country they traveled through and were denied. They would be placed in fast-track deportation proceedings and flown to their home countries at U.S. expense. This is designed to clear up the gridlock and backlog that is holding up the immigration process and hampering those that are doing the process the way it is supposed to be done.

This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer

pleased that the Supreme Court intervened in this case,” adding, “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.”

Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said the agency was
Please follow and like us:
error
About the author: Republican
As a Republican I am a conservative but have a little libertarian leanings. I about 80% a Trump supporter. I agree with him most of the time but as I am a person that thinks for himself I don't go along with him just because he is the President. I am not like liberals that think their candidates are Gods and never wrong.
Republican avatar
Republican

As a Republican I am a conservative but have a little libertarian leanings. I about 80% a Trump supporter. I agree with him most of the time but as I am a person that thinks for himself I don't go along with him just because he is the President. I am not like liberals that think their candidates are Gods and never wrong.