Supreme Court kills Trump's hope of outlawing asylum seekers

On November 9th, Trump issued a proclamation that barred anyone crossing the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum. The only people who could request asylum under this proclamation would be people coming through official ports of entry.

The law was blocked by the 9th Circuit court of appeals earlier this month. This led to Trump lashing out calling the judge an "Obama Judge" and questioning the ability of the 9th Circuit.

The rationale for the law given by the Trump administration were:

channeling asylum seekers to ports of entry for orderly processing, discouraging dangerous and illegal entries between ports of entry, reducing the backlog of meritless asylum claims, and facilitating diplomatic negotiations.”

However, lower courts ruled that federal law does not allow the president to make these changes unilaterally. In other words, this proclamation is illegal.

Today the Supreme Court sided with the 9th Circuit court in denying the administrations request to make this proclamation law.

This is why we have separation of powers kids. So that presidents who think they can do anything they wish don't get away with walking over the laws of this great nation.

Supreme Court denies Trump administration request to immediately enforce new asylum rules

a reply to: BlackJackal

Trump owned Government Shutdown, Mar-A-Lago vacation cancelled, Conservative majority supreme court delivers a rebuke to his asylum shenanigans.




Today is a good day.

Womp womp!

So does this prove that Sullivan isn't a Trump-hater and actually cares about the law?

(Yes, I know this isn't the Sullivan case but his rationale was pretty much the same as this case.)

That's a shame, it's just basic common sense.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Womp womp!

So does this prove that Sullivan isn't a Trump-hater and actually cares about the law?

(Yes, I know this isn't the Sullivan case but his rationale was pretty much the same as this case.)

Nah, the Supreme Court is just out to get Trump. They don't know what they are doing.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
That's a shame, it's just basic common sense.

Common sense? Fine, if you believe that to be a good law then get it passed through Congress and signed into law by the president, legally. Don't try to issue proclamations like a medieval king.

a reply to: BlackJackal

Congress, controlled by both parties has failed over and over to produce immigration reform for over a decade. Obama told them to fix the law and they failed. Trump told them to fix the law and they failed.

Now your crying because Trump is actually trying to fix the problem? Go pound sand.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I do realize your purpose is to spread propaganda to hurt Trump, but it would help if you would actually do some research before making such statements. Looking over your link, it sounds like the Supreme Court may have (I can't really be sure about this) refused to overturn a restraining order. That is different than ruling on a case. From what I understand doing a Google search, the case is still pending a hearing by the Appellate Court and has not yet reached the Supreme Court. Your link did not give much input from the Supreme Court, and read more like a biased synopsis of the history of the case.

It's really a shame... I look at new threads as my main source of news. Thank you very much for muddying those waters.

I could be wrong, but I didn't find anything about even a Appellate decision, much less a Supreme Court decision. So, realizing that appeals concerning restraining orders are typically expedited, I can only assume based on your propaganda and that of the linked page that the Supreme Court declined to reverse the restraining order.

Not really a problem... Trump can declare a national emergency and shut the border down to everyone if he has to.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: BlackJackal
On November 9th, Trump issued a proclamation that barred anyone crossing the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum. The only people who could request asylum under this proclamation would be people coming through official ports of entry.

The law was blocked by the 9th Circuit court of appeals earlier this month. This led to Trump lashing out calling the judge an "Obama Judge" and questioning the ability of the 9th Circuit.

The rationale for the law given by the Trump administration were:

channeling asylum seekers to ports of entry for orderly processing, discouraging dangerous and illegal entries between ports of entry, reducing the backlog of meritless asylum claims, and facilitating diplomatic negotiations.”

However, lower courts ruled that federal law does not allow the president to make these changes unilaterally. In other words, this proclamation is illegal.

Today the Supreme Court sided with the 9th Circuit court in denying the administrations request to make this proclamation law.

This is why we have separation of powers kids. So that presidents who think they can do anything they wish don't get away with walking over the laws of this great nation.

Supreme Court denies Trump administration request to immediately enforce new asylum rules

Your title is false and your conclusion is false. They are blocking the government from enforcing its new asylum policy while litigation over its legality plays out. It's just a stay pending appeal. You're declaring a victory a little too prematurely. Trump may still win in the supreme court, and if it does, you'll have to eat your own words again.

a reply to: BlackJackal

meanwhile nothing is being done to quell illegal immigration...

its sad when partisan politics becomes a myopia keeping the obvious out of sight.

i live in socal.. we need border security. stopping ILLEGAL immigration is not a bad thing.

trump is just a misguided buffoon in his execution of problem solving.

but can we at least acknowledge that we have an illegal immigration problem? criminals could careless about political affiliation.

if you want a good "laugh", subscribe to local news from soCal to see the kind of crimes which never make it to msm, simply because it would expose 2 ugly truths...

one of them is how easily it is to manipulate the minds of Americans ... guess the other one.

no one wins anything here... making trump look bad really doesn't solve the forking problem.

a reply to: BlackJackal

It's too bad that chief justice Roberts has been compromised.

He has now joined Democrats in not caring if illegal aliens and drugs cause of death to American citizens. What a shame.

There is no "asylum" laws in the US since the wet foot/dry foot process that Obama ended with renewed relations with Cuba

Y'all knew that , of course
Didn't you ?

a reply to: Propagandalf

Thank you for verifying my findings.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Propagandalf

Thank you for verifying my findings.

TheRedneck

SCOTUS blog

Did justice Ruth Ginsburg vote while having surgery?
theconservativetreehouse.com... l-justices/

a reply to: BlackJackal

Well then, the court has spoken and it should be respected. Another solution that satisfies everyone concerned and involved should be sought out instead.

a reply to: BlackJackal

That's funny congress has a hard time doing anything meanwhile your paycheck is being divided up by illegals while single parent working Americans can barely get help.

This is a matter of national security and he should just tell the courts to go to hell and lock up every congressman whom threatened national security by not bringing a vote to the floor for the wall.

a reply to: BlackJackal

A week ago you were blaming Trump for the death of a 7 year old girl who crossed the border illegally in New Mexico.

Now you're rejoicing in the fact that Trump's attempts to enact laws to stop this quickly have been stymied.

Which is it you want?

Because this is the sort of thing that makes people feel that you only want whatever makes Trump look bad on the day. You don't really care about the people affected either way.

a reply to: BlackJackal

I'll tell you why what you're hating Trump for is actually a good thing.

A decade ago my country had a left-wing government dismantle our strong border protection laws. The result was a wave of 51,000 boat people arriving, 8,400 of which were children. But 1,200 attempted migrants drowned at sea, hundreds of which were children. One thousand, two hundred people drowned, including hundreds of children.

Years later the subsequent government brought in a law that anyone arriving illegally would NOT be settled here under any circumstances, and that law was advertised heavily overseas. The boat people stopped almost overnight because they people smugglers couldn't make money off them. I can recall maybe one arrival of boat people in the past 5 years. The policy might sound harsh, but it works and it saves the lives of those people you pretend to care about.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: BlackJackal

Well then, the court has spoken and it should be respected. Another solution that satisfies everyone concerned and involved should be sought out instead.

The Court's decision must be respected, actually. But...

The time has surely come,
For the laws to fit the times.

Only the Congress can make laws.