Donald Trump

Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Attempt To Change Asylum Law

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services allows those who are physically present in the U.S. or have entered at a port of entry to apply for asylum.

|

|||KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom
KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom

The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected President Trump's latest attempt to control migration into the country.

The Associated Press reports that the court upheld a federal judge's ruling barring a ban on asylum seeking along the southern border. The administration's proposed policy, which dates back to early November, sought to temporarily prevent immigrants from being able to apply for asylum if they did not come into the U.S. at an official point of entry.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) defines an asylum seeker as one who suffers from or fears persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The USCIS also says that one must be physically present in the U.S. or enter at an official port of entry in order to apply for asylum status. If already in the country, a migrant has up to a year to apply for asylum. Similarly, Reason's Shikha Dalmia found that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act allows immigrants to seek asylum upon arrival regardless of whether they entered the U.S. legally or illegally.

Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, whose Wednesday ruling has kept the proposed ban in a state of limbo, ruled that Trump's ban was in conflict with immigration law. Tigar referenced the current asylum-seeking rules in his explanation.

The SCOTUS ruling was 5-4. Newly appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito sided with Trump. At the time of this writing, a court opinion has not been released.

The asylum application became a topic of national debate after immigration hardliners, including the president, placed special attention on a migrant caravan of several thousand people, which set out from Honduras in October and spent more than a month traveling north toward the U.S. At one point, the president and conservative pundits jumped on an unsubstantiated claim that ISIS militants were hiding in the caravan. Interviews with some in the caravan showed a desire to leave areas overridden with criminals and to escape political upheaval caused by "the re-election of U.S.-backed president, Juan Orlando Hernández in an intensely disputed election."

Advertisement

NEXT: At the Start of 2018, Straws Were Legal Almost Everywhere. Now, They're an Endangered Species Across the U.S.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The USCIS doesn’t make law. It makes regulations. And the exectutive can change those regulations. I will have to read the opinion but this article makes it soudn like the USCIS is somehow separate from the rest of the exectutive that its defeintions and rules are above the will of the president. They are not. At most this means that USCIS has to go through a rule making process and change the regulation and that Trump can’t via exectutive order override the regulation.

    1. The USCIS doesn’t make law. It makes regulations.

      And if you don’t follow those regulations?

      1. Then they make prisoners, cadavers, the usual… But there is a category, “arriving immigrant”. The starvelings lured to California fit the profile, and “arriving immigrants” without proper papers are swiftly sent back to wherever. There is a complicated form in English they hand out to those that can make it past the asylum officer. But asylum officers have heard thousands of half-baked lies and allegations, usually having nothing to do with the protected conditions. On appeal, the judge typically turns out to be no more gullible than the asylum officer. The US exports prohibitionist violence through CIA, FATF, AML, TF, CFT, DNFBP, IRS-CID, INL, ICRG, GIABA, GAFISUD, FSRB, FIU, FinCEN, EAG and ilk, plus private fascist meddlers like DARE. This guarantee endless asset-forfeiture financial convulsions instead of a stable economy. So yes, there is violence everywhere just like Chicago and NY under the 18th Amendment or the entire US during the Nixon bombings–only worse.

    2. John, you know the executive only has executive powers when the executive isn’t Trump. Why are you acting like you don’t know that?

      1. Wasnt Trump suppose to shut off his phone and close his pen once he became president?

  2. When are they going to block the president from allowing U.S. troops to cross the border into America, troops that several presidents have nearly legitimately promised to foreigners?

  3. the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act allows immigrants to seek asylum upon arrival regardless of whether they entered the U.S. legally or illegally.

    That seems to be the relevant point. The law is explicit about that. So how can this decision be 5-4? I would have expected it to be unanimous, that the President cannot override what the law says.

    1. I’d assume something like prosecutional discretion: the law allows INS to consider those applications, but doesn’t require them to. If you have strained resources, then you only have the ability to consider those applications following whatever rules the administrative state normally generates in order to perform their function.

    2. This too seems pretty black-and-white.

      The administration’s proposed policy, which dates back to early November, sought to temporarily prevent immigrants from being able to apply for asylum if they did not come into the U.S. at an official point of entry.

      The USCIS also says that one must be physically present in the U.S. or enter at an official port of entry in order to apply for asylum status.

      Hard to understand that split, so it probably depends on some other legal argle bargle.

    3. This isn’t 1965 and the world population is not 3 billion. If not for the pill and the LP plank becoming Roe v. Wade, we’d have the sort of population Ehrlich predicted back when the slope of the population growth curve was positive (or high radiation levels). That derivative changed sign just before the LP+Suprema Corte legalized women’s rights. But another 5 billion have since been added. The population curve is only turning a little less steep than nearly vertical. A lot of immigration laws have changed since 1965, possibly on account of the nearly doubled population.

    4. The law doesn’t say they have to be granted temporary residency while waiting for adjudication on their asylum claims. That can be changed. Go back home and America will listen to the claim.

  4. Here is a place that the democrats could approve that $5 billion and it could be used for border security. That money could be used to build and asylum seekers villages to house these seekers until their case is determined. There the families could be kept together and education would be provided for children and if available work for the adults. however the asylum seekers would not be allow to leave the village without a border agent with them. This would last until their case is determined. When the case is determined the appropriate action would be taken. If denied the seekers would be deported and if granted as soon as possible the asylum seekers would be released. The release could be accomplished more quickly if they asylum seekers had a sponsor who would take responsibility for the seekers.

  5. If already in the country, a migrant has up to a year to apply for asylum. Similarly, Reason’s Shikha Dalmia found that the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act allows immigrants to seek asylum upon arrival regardless of whether they entered the U.S. legally or illegally.

    “Similarly”? “Up to a year” vs “upon arrival”?

  6. They are seeking asylum because they feel unsafe after a “US backed president” Juan Hernandez was elected….so they come to the US?

    1. “Well, it’s a different US President now.”

      1. One who loves immigrants. Wonderful people. The best people. Only the best immigrants come to America. The best.

    2. Maybe we should stop backing the narco lords, training the death squads, and financing the cronyist families who keep the place a banana state. We are almost inevitably on the wrong side in that area. Funny how they understand that far better than we do.

      1. It’s the Narcos or the Commies…. which ones do you think we’ve been backing?

      2. The culture of south America was corrupt a d violent long before the US got involved.

  7. El presidente Juan Orlando Hern?ndez’ brother Tony was busted by US narcs over thoughtcrime involving plant leaf products. To this were added additional thoughtcrime allegations involving guns–those things the narcs all carry–to make it the event seem menacing and scary. The bust was almost exactly a month ago. El Presidente is a U.S. puppet running a typical Republican racket state–prohibition to make drugs an expensive cartel and women stripped of rights, forced into involuntary labor to squeeze out Lebensborn altar boys and brainwashees to please the Pope iv Rome. Small wonder the population is fleeing on foot.

  8. Just to be clear, this ruling was about whether Trump’s policy would be reinstated while it’s winding its way through the courts. This isn’t a ruling on the merits of the case so much as it’s a ruling that Trump’s preferred policy will be not be implemented until there’s a ruling on the merits of the case.

    In regards to the merits themselves, there’s my preferred interpretation and there’s the reality.

    My preferred interpretation is that setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress, and unless the legislation setting those rules gives the president discretion, those rules should prevail over the president’s preferences. There may be a constitutional argument for the president’s claim to emergency powers, but in my preferred interpretation, those claims would face a hell of a lot more scrutiny then such claims have been subjected to since 9/11.

    The reality is that the president has argued that there may be terrorists among the asylum seekers, and that speaks not only to the president’s emergency powers and his powers as commander in chief but also he may even be able to justify it under the same logic Obama used to argue that the AUMF gave Obama the authority to track every individual American’s phone calls–without a warrant. The further reality is that the language of the laws Congress has passed in regards to immigration really largely do defer to the president’s discretion.

    It is what it is regardless of whether we like it.

    1. So the court held the current practice in operation until (and if) it decides the merits?

      1. Yes, might not know it by reading this post, but this was an attempt by the Trump administration to implement the policy–while it’s being litigated.

        I’ve seen it reported that way at Reuters and the Wall Street Journal.

        “The court, in a brief written order, turned down an emergency appeal by the Justice Department that sought to have the ban take effect during continued litigation over whether the measure is lawful.”

        http://www.wsj.com/articles/su…..545423447?

    2. Look at Ken over here with his clarity and factual assertions, too good to just make up whatever facts he wants like the rest of us.

  9. Roberts, the quintessential RINO.

    He really is a piece of shit who refuses to do his job.

    Like Earl Warren, Roberts will be viewed as a bureaucrat who refused to do his job and follow the constitution.

    Whatever, deny their asylum petitions because they dont have claims that qualify.

  10. Border security is squarely the responsibility of the Executive. Illegals cannot apply for asylum because they are law violators. A court should not be able to halt an action by the president for our security while the courts consider whether the act is lawful. Lots of court decisions are just political statements these days.

  11. This might be a good ruling if it wasn’t for the fact that after applying for asylum, many, if not most, immigrants disappear into the undocumented demi-monde, and never report for their hearings. And since it’s cruel to detain them, and demeaning to put monitoring devices on them, they will never be found, unless they get arrested for some other violation of the law.

  12. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

  13. Someone should mention to Roberts that this is the right way to be a tie breaker. Unlike, you know, that other time.

  14. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.