Supreme Court allows Trump asylum restrictions to take effect, ending 9th Circuit injunctions

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly. We have judges creating laws, which is not what they are supposed to be doing. The law has already created the definition, judges are not supposed to redefine laws and decide they personally think this is persecution, so even though it is not under the law they will rule it is.

We have separations of powers in America for a reason.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well, in this case it really wasn't a judge as in from the Judicial branch that created those decisions. It was an Immigration judge, which is simply a part of the Executive branch put in place to give some measure of protection from single bureaucrats going rogue. Tax courts operate the same way.

As such, when it comes to interpretation of the law, neither a Tax court or an Immigration court gets any say whatsoever. That is reserved for the Judicial branch.

Now, the judge who tried to issue the injunction was a Federal judge in the Judicial branch, and therein is the serious problem. His jurisdiction does not even include the extent of the US, yet he is making decisions that affect the entire US. All immigration questions should go directly to the Supreme Court, since only they have national jurisdiction.

What I like about this ruling is, as I told Sookie, that for the first time a rogue judge has been slapped down hard by the Supreme Court. Hopefully this will make him back off his unconstitutional behavior. If not, he heeds to be removed for violating his oath of office.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
We don't have one with Mexico either,

Maybe you are wrong?

www.orlandosentinel.com... semi related but trump has pretty much flipped the 11th discrict court from a 4-3 dem majority to a 6-1 conservative one ,so with his additions to the 9th circut he as pretty much flipped two of the district courts to solid conservative now

The three conservative picks replaced three liberal justices, transforming the balance of the court from a 4-3 liberal majority to a 6-1 conservative Florida Supreme Court. The Atlanta-based 11th Circuit presides over cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia. Lagoa and Luck would replace Judge Geral Tjoflat and Judge Stanley Marcus, who will take senior status on the court. Tjoflat and Marcus were nominated by President Gerald Ford and President Bill Clinton, respectively.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
We don't have one with Mexico either,

Maybe you are wrong?

But, I'm not.

From your link:

Foreign Secretary Ebrard consistently rejected that proposal. He insisted that a safe third country arrangement would violate the Mexican constitution and Mexico's international human rights agreements.

And,
Mexico writes off "safe third country" immigration deal with U.S. www.msn.com...

Citing a continued decline of border apprehensions by American officials, Mexico's top diplomat on Tuesday touted his government's efforts to stem the flow of migrants trying to the reach the U.S. and cast a "safe third country" agreement between both countries as unnecessary and politically untenable.

But Ebrard said he told U.S. officials that neither his government or the Mexican Senate would agree to such a deal, stressing that he believes the two sides have accomplished "90%" of the goals they outlined in June, when Mr. Trump was threatening to impose tariffs on Mexican goods unless Mexico did more to stem the flow of migrants.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Did you know that President Trump owns property in Scotland. If it gets too bad; he may move.

a reply to: GeertrudeS

Good thing we have Trump fixing a lot of the problems so that won't happen. There are things I definitely disagree with about Trump, but immigration and the economy he is on the right track.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
" "We don't have one with Mexico either,"
Maybe you are wrong?"

But, I'm not.

Ah, my apologies, you are correct, I was mixing up the 'safe third country' agreement with the 'Remain in Mexico' agreement, which is, in my opinion, far more important for the immediate.

Asylum seekers must remain in Mexico until their case is adjudicated, and that program, according to the article I linked, is no being expanded.

Safe third country would help a lot, but as long as they can be required to wait in Mexico, it eliminates the drain on our own resour4ces, and removes a huge motivation for these people to keep coming.

a reply to: tanstaafl

From a practical standpoint, the "remain in Mexico" agreement acts like a "safe third country" agreement. The actual title of the agreement is irrelevant.

My understanding is that the only difference is that under a "safe third country" agreement, the country in question would pledge to offer asylum to those intending to seek asylum in the US, which would include the agreement to not persecute those who applied. Considering the corrupt state of the countries south of Mexico, it is no wonder there is a problem getting a full agreement. Mexico, however, despite the drug cartels and severe poverty/crime in some rural areas, is less corrupt and has even offered those traveling to the US through Mexico worker VISA status which would equate to asylum in a practical sense (as in, those applying would still receive legal status in a country not persecuting them). Asylum is not citizenship; asylum is a specific type of "safe harbor" granted by countries to those being prosecuted in violation of basic human rights. That's all it is.

In any case, the Attorney General/Homeland Security secretary is under no legal obligation whatsoever to grant asylum to anyone. The only legal requirement is to be able to apply. Immigration law gives the Attorney General/Homeland Security great latitude in determining whether or not to grant asylum, despite specifying exactly what can (should?) constitute proper asylum eligibility.

TheRedneck