• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country

BlueTex

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
49,263
Reaction score
41,189
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
BlueTex said:
Not surprising considering this was in direct conflict with the INA. Just another example of the Trump administration trying to create law on their own.

A federal court Tuesday night upheld a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, specifically a 2019 rule that requires seekers to ask for asylum closer to home.

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just another example of the Trump administration trying to create law on their own.
Click to expand...

It was just Trump rhetoric and for him to look like he's doing something for his gullible base
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump has only half a clue on how the American government is supposed to work and he was cunning enough to find its weak spots, namely partisanship and the enormous power afforded to the Executive in the Constitution. Sadly, he lacks a compassionate nature, especially in dealing with Hispanic immigrants and asylum seekers, which has brought the presidency into disgrace. It will be good to see the back of him.
 
Jean-s said:
Donald Trump has only half a clue on how the American government is supposed to work and he was cunning enough to find its weak spots, namely partisanship and the enormous power afforded to the Executive in the Constitution. Sadly, he lacks a compassionate nature, especially in dealing with Hispanic immigrants and asylum seekers, which has brought the presidency into disgrace. It will be good to see the back of him.
Click to expand...

It would be sweeter if I could see the back of him with my foot up his ass, but I'll take it.
 
If memory serves, there was a time when we had a number of people from either Cuba or Haiti attempting to come to this country, seeking asylum. The Coast Guard was put to work keeping them from actually coming ashore. The working rule was that if they managed to come ashore, they would be eligible to claim asylum.

So ... it was assumed at that time that one could come to the US illegally and claim asylum.

Times change.
 
Torus34 said:
If memory serves, there was a time when we had a number of people from either Cuba or Haiti attempting to come to this country, seeking asylum. The Coast Guard was put to work keeping them from actually coming ashore. The working rule was that if they managed to come ashore, they would be eligible to claim asylum.

So ... it was assumed at that time that one could come to the US illegally and claim asylum.

Times change.
Click to expand...

International law on the right of people to claim asylum has not changed and neither has the obligation to honor it.
 
BlueTex said:
Not surprising considering this was in direct conflict with the INA. Just another example of the Trump administration trying to create law on their own.

A federal court Tuesday night upheld a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, specifically a 2019 rule that requires seekers to ask for asylum closer to home.

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Another Administrative Procedures Act violation.

I don't understand why they keep running into that. Just have someone do a study and write up a justification, put it out for public comments, show that you've reviewed the comments, and give it a 30 day waiting period before becoming effective. I understand that it's cumbersome, but it doesn't stop an administration from doing anything, and doesn't necessarily even add a delay. Every agency has a process and a staff to take care of this.
 
dcsports said:
Another Administrative Procedures Act violation.

I don't understand why they keep running into that. Just have someone do a study and write up a justification, put it out for public comments, show that you've reviewed the comments, and give it a 30 day waiting period before becoming effective. I understand that it's cumbersome, but it doesn't stop an administration from doing anything, and doesn't necessarily even add a delay. Every agency has a process and a staff to take care of this.
Click to expand...

They keep running into it because they have idiots driving these kinds of decisions and rather than respecting and understanding the law, they are rushing things through on the idiot in chiefs timetable.
 
BlueTex said:
Not surprising considering this was in direct conflict with the INA. Just another example of the Trump administration trying to create law on their own.

A federal court Tuesday night upheld a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, specifically a 2019 rule that requires seekers to ask for asylum closer to home.

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Trump had a really bad June.
 
HumblePi said:
It would be sweeter if I could see the back of him with my foot up his ass, but I'll take it.
Click to expand...

Looks like a big win for the Dems. Cities like Seattle, LA and San Fran will continue to expand their base , and take control of them. NYC buckled under the pressure of BLM, and are defunding the PD. The rest of the democrat run cities will expand into the surrounding counties as well. The red states are starting to crack too. This will likely be the last republican administration. These sanctuary cities will be full of illegals ready to be granted citizenship when the Dems take over and that will pretty much lock it up for the Dems electorally.
 
Last edited:
Torus34 said:
If memory serves, there was a time when we had a number of people from either Cuba or Haiti attempting to come to this country, seeking asylum. The Coast Guard was put to work keeping them from actually coming ashore. The working rule was that if they managed to come ashore, they would be eligible to claim asylum.

So ... it was assumed at that time that one could come to the US illegally and claim asylum.

Times change.
Click to expand...

It wasn't assumed, that was law. If a person makes it onto our land and claims asylum, the process starts...first is the initial claim, interview for credible fear, credible fear hearing, NTA, bond, etc..then their asylum hearing and if denied, appeals...it is the legal process outlined by law.
 
mrdeltoid said:
Looks like a big win for the Dems. Cities like Seattle, LA and San Fran will continue to expand their base , and take control of them. NYC buckled under the pressure of BLM, and are defunding the PD. The rest of the democrat run cities will expand into the surrounding counties as well. The red states are starting to crack too. This will likely be the last republican administration. These sanctuary cities will be full of illegals ready to be granted citizenship when the Dems take over and that will pretty much lock it up for the Dems electorally.
Click to expand...

asylum seekers are not able to vote until they actually obtain citizenship...and even when they do, about half vote Democrat, half vote Republican...so, that is expanding both bases.....but not for around 30 years, if even then.
 
ClaraD said:
asylum seekers are not able to vote until they actually obtain citizenship...and even when they do, about half vote Democrat, half vote Republican...so, that is expanding both bases.....but not for around 30 years, if even then.
Click to expand...

Asylum seekers get lumped in with all the illegals in some peoples eyes
 
BlueTex said:
Not surprising considering this was in direct conflict with the INA. Just another example of the Trump administration trying to create law on their own.

A federal court Tuesday night upheld a challenge to the Trump administration's asylum restrictions, specifically a 2019 rule that requires seekers to ask for asylum closer to home.

Judge overturns Trump border rule requiring immigrants to first claim asylum in another country


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It will got the SCOTUS and get overturned.
as they have previously ruled that the administration has the ability to make
immigration policy changes.
 
ClaraD said:
It wasn't assumed, that was law. If a person makes it onto our land and claims asylum, the process starts...first is the initial claim, interview for credible fear, credible fear hearing, NTA, bond, etc..then their asylum hearing and if denied, appeals...it is the legal process outlined by law.
Click to expand...

They do not get access to appeals via the last SCOTUS ruling.
Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration In Deportation Case : NPR
Immigrants who make a claim for asylum must initially prove to immigration officials that they have a "credible fear" of persecution in their country of origin to proceed with the full asylum process. If they fail, they can be deported without ever having the opportunity to make their case in court.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the opinion for the conservative court majority. He said that neither the right of habeas corpus nor the right to due process of law requires a hearing before a judge for those turned down in their initial asylum screenings. This framework, he said, was properly authorized by Congress in a 1996 law aimed at speeding deportations at the border.
 
Jean-s said:
International law on the right of people to claim asylum has not changed and neither has the obligation to honor it.
Click to expand...

The United States is not obliged to follow any laws not passed by our own congress. In fact that would be illegal
 
ludin said:
It will got the SCOTUS and get overturned.
as they have previously ruled that the administration has the ability to make
immigration policy changes.
Click to expand...

Yawn.... Unless Trump gets re-elected, its dead... there is no time for it to make it to the supreme court
 
Last edited:
mrdeltoid said:
Looks like a big win for the Dems. Cities like Seattle, LA and San Fran will continue to expand their base , and take control of them. NYC buckled under the pressure of BLM, and are defunding the PD. The rest of the democrat run cities will expand into the surrounding counties as well. The red states are starting to crack too. This will likely be the last republican administration. These sanctuary cities will be full of illegals ready to be granted citizenship when the Dems take over and that will pretty much lock it up for the Dems electorally.
Click to expand...

You ever stop to think for one second that maybe they are trying to help with citizenship because it's the humane thing to do?

People wouldn't walk a thousand miles carrying a small child because they were unhappy with the lack of pizza places in their town. They try to come here for a reason, although, for the life of me, I can't see why at this point in time.
 
Superfly said:
Yeah, people who don't let things like facts get in the way of their narrative.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate.

Asylum seekers crossing the southern border do get lumped in often, because most are abusing the asylum system. They've gotten the message that 'asylum' is a magic word, and ask for it regardless of any basis for the claim.
 
ludin said:
They do not get access to appeals via the last SCOTUS ruling.
Supreme Court Sides With Trump Administration In Deportation Case : NPR
Immigrants who make a claim for asylum must initially prove to immigration officials that they have a "credible fear" of persecution in their country of origin to proceed with the full asylum process. If they fail, they can be deported without ever having the opportunity to make their case in court.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Samuel Alito writing the opinion for the conservative court majority. He said that neither the right of habeas corpus nor the right to due process of law requires a hearing before a judge for those turned down in their initial asylum screenings. This framework, he said, was properly authorized by Congress in a 1996 law aimed at speeding deportations at the border.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about initial screenings that occur and are turned down...you might want to go back and read again...the intial process happens when a person is in the US....and claims credible fear. If they do not pass the bar for credible fear, I agree there is no hearing required...as they already received it in that initial credible fear interview. I have been through this more than once...and you have to be INSIDE the US to file for asylum or claim credible fear.
 
ludin said:
It will got the SCOTUS and get overturned.
as they have previously ruled that the administration has the ability to make
immigration policy changes.
Click to expand...

They cannot change the INA without going through Congress.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The United States is not obliged to follow any laws not passed by our own congress. In fact that would be illegal
Click to expand...
The relevant laws regarding asylum exist as both statutory law, and international law - which, since it is based on treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate, is just as binding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom