Judge bars US from enforcing Trump asylum ban

[Hoodat]

So, where is the determination of the Attorney General?  All that appears to exist is a proclamation from the president.

Dunno.  But I'm sure that would be a simple formality since the AG works at the discretion of the President.

[Elderberry]

The same country they crossed over from.

That only applies to aliens who have no nationality.

or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence)

[Oceander]

The same country they crossed over from.

Maybe if Trump had followed procedure instead of winging it at the last minute with a proclamation under an inapplicable code section. 

First, there has to be a bilateral or multilateral agreement pursuant to which a particular alien can be removed, and there must be a determination made by the Attorney General that this particular alien can be removed to some other country pursuant to that agreement where the particular alien will be safe (to paraphrase) and where there is available a full and fair procedure for determining asylum claims. 

Perhaps he should have started with the Attorney General?

[Oceander]

Dunno.  But I'm sure that would be a simple formality since the AG works at the discretion of the President.

I highly doubt that.  Furthermore, it is a statutory requirement, so it must have been done beforehand.  It wasn’t.  Trump went off-Rez again, for no particularly good reason, just to throw some red meat. 

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote:
"The President should simply tell this "Judge" that his opinion is noted and move on with the policy."

You have this exactly right (of course!).

At some point, the president is going to have to take a stand against rogue judges at the trial court level.

He may win, he may lose, but he can't win if he doesn't force the issue.

At the very least, push it upwards into the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.

[Hoodat]

I stand corrected.

US Code §1158 says:

(1) In general

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

Section 1225(b) says:

(b) Inspection of applicants for admission

(1) Inspection of aliens arriving in the United States and certain other aliens who have not been admitted or paroled

(A) Screening

(ii) Claims for asylum

If an immigration officer determines that an alien (other than an alien described in subparagraph (F)) who is arriving in the United States or is described in clause (iii) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) of this title and the alien indicates either an intention to apply for asylum under section 1158 of this title or a fear of persecution, the officer shall refer the alien for an interview by an asylum officer under subparagraph (B).

Section 1182(a)(7) says that any immigrant not in possession of a border-crossing ID card is inadmissible.  But if they request asylum, they are still entitled to a hearing.

So the AG needs to get the ball rolling here and set up temporary asylum hearing offices near these illegal crossover sites.  Anyone caught without the obligatory ID card will be incarcerated until their hearing comes up.  And after the hearing, unless they are Mexican, their asylum requests should be promptly denied since they were no longer in danger once the got to Mexico.   And the right to any future asylum requests should be forfeited due to their illegal entry.

[Oceander]

I stand corrected.

US Code §1158 says:


Section 1225(b) says:

Section 1182(a)(7) says that any immigrant not in possession of a border-crossing ID card is inadmissible.  But if they request asylum, they are still entitled to a hearing.

So the AG needs to get the ball rolling here and set up temporary asylum hearing offices near these illegal crossover sites.  Anyone caught without the obligatory ID card will be incarcerated until their hearing comes up.  And after the hearing, unless they are Mexican, their asylum requests should be promptly denied since they were no longer in danger once the got to Mexico.   And the right to any future asylum requests should be forfeited due to their illegal entry.

8 USC 1158(a)(2)(A) - the “safe third country” exception - is only operative if there is a bilateral or multilateral agreement that permits the removal of an alien to a safe third country, and from what I can see, the US only has such an agreement with Canada; it does not have one with Mexico.  Without such an agreement, 1158(a)(2)(A) doesn’t apply to individuals arriving at the Mexico border who claim asylum.

[mrclose]

That deals with entry, not application for asylum.  Two very different things.

Umm Read it again ....

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”



Not allowing 'amnesty', or (impose on entry any restrictions he may deem appropriate ...) in my mind would be appropriate since it would be detrimental to the interests of the United States!?

You come in illegally or legally ... back out you go!
 

[Hoodat]

8 USC 1158(a)(2)(A) - the “safe third country” exception - is only operative if there is a bilateral or multilateral agreement that permits the removal of an alien to a safe third country, and from what I can see, the US only has such an agreement with Canada; it does not have one with Mexico.  Without such an agreement, 1158(a)(2)(A) doesn’t apply to individuals arriving at the Mexico border who claim asylum.

You are referring to those who show up at a crossing center and apply for asylum.   In that event, they can remain in Mexico until their case is heard.

[Elderberry]

You are referring to those who show up at a crossing center and apply for asylum.   In that event, they can remain in Mexico until their case is heard.

I think you are confusing "safe third country" with "contiguous territory"

1225(b)(2)(C) Treatment of aliens arriving from contiguous territory
In the case of an alien described in subparagraph (A) who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

at some point, the Red Army will show up at the border and some asinine federal judge will deem it is their constitutional right to not be denied entry into our country.

Judges are turning our country into one to be mocked.  It is time for us to begin mocking these judges before we lose our country.

[Oceander]

You are referring to those who show up at a crossing center and apply for asylum.   In that event, they can remain in Mexico until their case is heard.

No, I’m not. I’m referring to the statute.

The safe third country exception is contained in 1158(a)(2), which provides for exceptions to the ability to claim asylum that is granted under 1158(a)(1) to aliens who are already in the US, and which right is given to them without regard to their status. 

Applications for asylum at a port of entry are governed by another section of the statute.

[GrouchoTex]

Maybe that's Trump's ultimate goal, to get the law changed so that is the case.

The law should be written in a way that makes sense, that's for sure.
Yet, it is the federal government we are talking about here, and common sense is not in their vocabulary.