Ninth Circuit rules gov't must continue to release "asylum seekers" into the U.S., then...
Until last January the U.S. government allowed an unlimited number of "asylum seekers" to enter the country. They filled out asylum applications, but since these take time to verify, everyone who claimed to be "seeking asylum" was given a future date to appear for a court hearing on their application for asylum, and was then released to anywhere they wanted to go in the U.S.
This policy--called "catch-and-release"--allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to live in the US while their asylum claims were processed by swamped immigration courts. Critics have claimed the policy encouraged would-be immigrants to claim asylum even when they weren't fleeing deadly persecution.
I know you'll be as shocked as I was to learn that 95% of the so-called "asylum seekers" never showed up for their hearings. And of course once they vanished into the vast cities they couldn't be found. Many had children in the U.S., and because of our idiotic "anchor baby" policy those children automatically became U.S. citizens.
Predictably, tens of thousands of aliens claimed to be seeking asylum, when 99% or so were simply looking for better benefits.
In view of all the above, last January the Trump administration changed U.S. policy so that those claiming asylum would NOT be released into the U.S. unless an immigration court found that they were actually fleeing deadly or extremely dangerous persecution in their home country. Instead the alleged asylum seekers would have to wait outside the U.S. until their cases were adjudicated.
The Department of Justice credits the policy, known as “Remain in Mexico,” with a steep drop in arrests of people entering the U.S. illegally, which have plunged 80 percent from their peak last May
Well...as everyone could have predicted, the ACLU called the totally sensible new policy "unspeakably cruel," and sued to overturn it.
And as you could also have predicted, a 3-judge panel of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU, decreeing that the new policy couldn't be implemented unless the liberal judges said it was okay. Which would happen an hour after pigs learn to fly.
Hours later the DOJ filed an emergency motion saying blocking the "Remain in Mexico" policy “could prompt a rush on the southern border.” The 3-judge panel then suspended its blocking decree, but it appears this is just a cover move to avoid blowback--because as soon as would-be asylum seekers heard about the decree ENDING "Remain in Mexico" a hundred or so stormed the Ciudad Juarez-El Paso border bridge, as word of the ruling spread in the Mexican camps where at least 25,000 asylum-seekers are waiting.
The panel gave the DOJ until tomorrow (!) to file arguments opposing its decree, and the case will probably end up in the Supreme Court.
Source: https://nypost.com/2020/02/29/migrants-surge-near-us-mexico-border-after-court-reverses-decision-on-trump-policy/
This policy--called "catch-and-release"--allowed hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to live in the US while their asylum claims were processed by swamped immigration courts. Critics have claimed the policy encouraged would-be immigrants to claim asylum even when they weren't fleeing deadly persecution.
I know you'll be as shocked as I was to learn that 95% of the so-called "asylum seekers" never showed up for their hearings. And of course once they vanished into the vast cities they couldn't be found. Many had children in the U.S., and because of our idiotic "anchor baby" policy those children automatically became U.S. citizens.
Predictably, tens of thousands of aliens claimed to be seeking asylum, when 99% or so were simply looking for better benefits.
In view of all the above, last January the Trump administration changed U.S. policy so that those claiming asylum would NOT be released into the U.S. unless an immigration court found that they were actually fleeing deadly or extremely dangerous persecution in their home country. Instead the alleged asylum seekers would have to wait outside the U.S. until their cases were adjudicated.
The Department of Justice credits the policy, known as “Remain in Mexico,” with a steep drop in arrests of people entering the U.S. illegally, which have plunged 80 percent from their peak last May
Well...as everyone could have predicted, the ACLU called the totally sensible new policy "unspeakably cruel," and sued to overturn it.
And as you could also have predicted, a 3-judge panel of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the ACLU, decreeing that the new policy couldn't be implemented unless the liberal judges said it was okay. Which would happen an hour after pigs learn to fly.
Hours later the DOJ filed an emergency motion saying blocking the "Remain in Mexico" policy “could prompt a rush on the southern border.” The 3-judge panel then suspended its blocking decree, but it appears this is just a cover move to avoid blowback--because as soon as would-be asylum seekers heard about the decree ENDING "Remain in Mexico" a hundred or so stormed the Ciudad Juarez-El Paso border bridge, as word of the ruling spread in the Mexican camps where at least 25,000 asylum-seekers are waiting.
The panel gave the DOJ until tomorrow (!) to file arguments opposing its decree, and the case will probably end up in the Supreme Court.
Source: https://nypost.com/2020/02/29/migrants-surge-near-us-mexico-border-after-court-reverses-decision-on-trump-policy/
posted by SF at
2:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home