Supreme Court Allows Trump To Move Forward With Asylum Restrictions

10
FILE - In this Oct. 10, 2017, file photo, the Supreme Court in Washington is seen at sunset. The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States. The justices’ order late Wednesday, Sept. 11, temporarily undoes a lower court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

Join our WhatsApp group

Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


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 policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

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.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The 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 win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” President Donald Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order.

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

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. 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.

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 Republican administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

It’s unclear 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.

The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, Lee Gelernt, said: “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.”

Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said the agency was “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.”(AP)

___


Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


Connect with VINnews

Join our WhatsApp group


10 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Educated Archy
Educated Archy
4 years ago

Believe it or not I have mixed feelings about this . On the one hand the asylum law is definitely abused and immigrants drain our system via having kids here and taking loads of govt programs let alone billingual schools . These are all new and not the same as the eliis island days where they were no govt programs .

On the other hand these guys do have a hard life and they made the effort to seek asylum vs come in illegal whether it was a shtick or not . We can probably absorb them . It also doesn’t make America look good .

So two sides

Frish
Frish
4 years ago

As Jews this issue is most difficult for us to debate, as we are asylem seekers for the past 2000 years. And although there are major differences , my humble opinion is for us to abstain from meddling in this

PaulinSaudi
PaulinSaudi
4 years ago

Remember when America turned its back on refugees in the 1930s?

Phineas
Phineas
4 years ago

It seems that Breyer and Kagan sided with the president. I guess when you put aside the question of whether the u.s. should be doing this, it comes down to what is within presidential power. The court isn’t saying its good policy, just that it’s within Trump’s aurhority.

Democrats are anti the constitution
Democrats are anti the constitution
4 years ago

After an Obama judge blocked it nationwide the 9th circuit limited it to the ninth circuit the Obama judge again issued a nationwide injunction and again was overturned by the ninth circuit and now his injunction has been overturned even in his jurisdiction.