Immigration

Homeland Security Can't Force Asylum Seekers to Wait in Mexico, Judge Rules

Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing.

|

JOSE LUIS GONZALEZ/REUTERS/Newscom

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration cannot force asylum-seekers at the southern border to wait in Mexico until they are granted a court hearing.

It's another legal setback for President Donald Trump's efforts to curb immigration. The preliminary injunction granted by U.S. District Judge Richard Seebord halts a series of new policies implemented in January by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in the hopes of stopping Central American families from entering the U.S. as asylum-seekers. Seebord's ruling will take affect on Friday of this week.

The ruling comes just days after the Trump administration announced plans to expand the policy to cover other ports of entry along the southern border. The 11 plaintiffs who successfully sought the injunction against DHS had tried to enter the U.S. at the San Ysidoro checkpoint in southern California—the only border crossing where the new policy was enforced, at first. Now, the Trump administration has extended the same policy to the Calexico port of entry in southern California and to the border crossing in El Paso, Texas.

"Indications are that it will be further extended unless enjoined," wrote Seebord in issuing the injunction.

Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing, and nothing requires immigration officials to release asylum-seekers into the U.S., Seebord wrote.

While the number of border apprehensions remains well below the 1.6 million recorded in 2000, there has been a significant increase this year. Many of those apprehensions are the result of migrants willingly surrendering to border agents and claiming asylum. In mid-March, The Washington Post reported that as many as 240 migrants seeking asylum had been sent back to Mexico since the since the policy was unveiled in January.

As Reason's Shikha Dalmia noted earlier today, Mexico has been cooperating so far:

This is mainly because the number of migrants it is holding is not that large, and the country doesn't want to jeopardize ongoing trade negotiations. However, it's hard to imagine that it'll scale up the program without major bribes.

The Trump administration argues that when migrants are released, they disappear, never to be heard from again. But the Department of Justice's own figures show that 90 percent of asylum seekers do, in fact, show up for their asylum hearings for the very good reason that if they don't, they could lose their shot at ever gaining legal status.

Trump will likely blame this legal defeat on liberal judges opposing his immigration policies for partisan reasons—and, indeed, Seebord is a judge in San Francisco. But forcing asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico was never a serious solution to the problems created by a surge of migrants at the border—certainly no more serious than claiming, as Trump did this weekend, that America "is full."

It's likely that Monday's injunction is only the first volley in what will become another lengthy legal battle over a Trump administration plan to reduce legal routes to immigration—all happening while human beings fleeing gang-violence in Central America hang in the balance.

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.

163 responses to “Homeland Security Can't Force Asylum Seekers to Wait in Mexico, Judge Rules

  1. Are they claiming the need asylum from persecution in Mexico? If they are alleging persecution in Mexico it is wrong to refuse to take them into detention.

    But if not, and they are requesting asylum from say Honduras then shouldn’t they have to apply for asylum from Mexico?

    1. That’s the way it was supposed to work…

      1. “Both US and international law prohibit the US from refusing entry to people who are in danger of prosecution in their home countries”

        WTF. Anyone being chased by their home guv gets a free pass? F that shit!

        1. I don’t think “prosecution” is the word you were looking for.

        2. Yes, that is the concept of asylum. Asylum is a good, quick way to keep people alive when another country starts oppressing its people. If the situation lasts a long time, we try to figure out a way to end the oppression or prepare for a long term surge in immigration from that country or coordinate with other nations so that many countries take in refugees.

          1. I quoted the article, hence prosecution. Persecution is different.

  2. “Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing, and nothing requires immigration officials to release asylum-seekers into the U.S., Seebord wrote.”

    Nothing in *this* ruling, but much in *other* lawless Deep State judicial authoritarianism.

    Reason is such a swamp of lying propaganda.
    #EnemyOfThePeople

    1. Plus, the detention centers are no doubt full.

      1. Bad day for the bigots, the backward, and the malcontents.

        1. Nonsense, I’m having a wonderful day.

        2. “Bad day for the bigots, the backward, and the malcontents.”

          Bigot assholes always have bad days, bigoted asshole.

        3. Bad day for the bigots, the backward, and the malcontents.

          Why you havin’ a bad day, Artie? Is your mom fuckin your kids again instead of leaving them for you?

          Oh, well, C’est la trailerpark, eh, Artie?

        4. You are an idiot troll.

      2. Detention centers full? Sheriff Joe had an answer: tents in the desert. F those invaders!

      3. We are spending money on a wall rather than the concentration camps we need to be building.

        The organizers of the caravans know we will never have the will power to stop them and they want to collapse America.

    2. From Judge Seebord’s injunction:

      “Furthermore, nothing in this order obligates the government to release into the United States any alien who has not been legally admitted, pursuant to a fully-adjudicated asylum application or on some other basis. DHS retains full statutory authority to detain all aliens pending completion of either expedited or regular removal proceedings.”

      So Reason is the #EnemyOfThePeople for accurately quoting the judge?

      1. Are you pretending to be in favor of imprisoning whole families of asylum seekers for years at a time pending their court date?

        That would be mighty disingenuous, even for you.

        1. Ken, I’m reporting Judge Seebord’s words in the injunction.

          1. With little, if any, understanding of what they mean?

            1. Its Jeff. Understanding things isnt his thing.

              1. Is this where you accuse me of being an “economic terrorist” again? LOL talk about “understanding things”

                1. Jeff, you’re a child with child like emoting. My goal is to make you understand facial analysis should be the epitome of 6th grade term papers, not adults. One day you’ll learn. But at least you agree you’re an authoritarian shit bag.

            2. I believe this is pretty much what the judge is saying – according to the law, foreigners are allowed to apply for asylum and await adjudication of their application and just because the system is overwhelmed is no license to ignore the law.

              But of course, this is why the crisis at the border is a national emergency and the caravans of asylum seekers are referred to as invaders – in times of war and crisis, the government is afforded a nod and a wink at violations of the Constitution. As I’ve said before, the War on Drugs is not a metaphorical war and you’re an idiot if you think that it is. It’s called a war specifically so that the Constitution may be violated and notice it’s not the drugs that are suffering the violations. There’s a War on Illegal Immigration brewing and if you’re cheering, you’re an idiot because you’re about to get violated some more.

            3. Ken, it seems as though you are spoiling for a fight. I don’t think the judge is *recommending* that the government lock up families for years and years, just that his order doesn’t *prohibit* the government from doing so. I personally don’t want to see families locked up for years and years, no.

              1. So do you think they should just be released into the wild with a hope and a prayer that they return for their court date years from now?

        2. Maybe he is not, but I am.
          If someone wants true asylum, go to an embassy and apply.
          Don’t sneak across in the dark of night. Or even in the light of day.
          Of course, it need not take years. Say no on day one, and deport them until they actually apply at a US embassy.

          1. Check in the comment below.

            Why bother hiring a smuggler or sneaking through miles of desert at night, when you can just go to a legitimate border crossing, claim asylum, and have an 80% chance of being given legal residency for two years or more?

            That’s what these people are doing.

            These are people who may never have been in the United States before they walked up to the checkpoint. Because they entered from Mexico, Trump was pressuring the Mexican government to let them stay in Mexico while waiting for their asylum hearing.

            This judge is begging Central America to flood into our southern border like so many African and Middle Eastern asylum seekers into the European Union in recent years.

            1. Why bother hiring a smuggler or sneaking through miles of desert at night, when you can just go to a legitimate border crossing, claim asylum, and have an 80% chance of being given legal residency for two years or more?

              If this asylum ‘loophole’ puts the coyotes and human traffickers out of business, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

              1. God your arguments are dumb. Let’s just wipe all laws of the books that way the bad guys dont profit. Jeff’s plan for everything. You’re a fucking idiot Jeff.

                1. The so-called loophole is a law “of the books” you dumbfuck.

        3. The USA can detain asylum seekers for 3 months at most due to Supreme Court rulings.

    3. Trump could always ignore it…or simply state it applies to that ONE defendant and nobody seems. The way Lincoln treated Dred Scott.

  3. Time to start using those FEMA camps…

  4. Chemjeff says they’re all welcome at his place.

    1. After the party at Tony’s place.

      1. It’s true, Tony’s parties are much better than mine.

        1. I’m upper, upper class high society
          God’s gift to ballroom notoriety
          And I always fill my ballroom
          The event is never small
          All the social papers say I’ve got the biggest balls of all
          I’ve got big balls
          I’ve got big balls
          And they’re such big balls
          Dirty big balls
          And he’s got big balls,
          And she’s got big balls,
          But we’ve got the biggest balls of them all!
          And my balls are always bouncing
          My ballroom always full
          And everybody comes and comes again
          If your name is on the guest list
          No one can take you higher
          Everybody says I’ve got great balls of fire!
          I’ve got big balls
          I’ve got big balls
          And they’re such big balls
          Dirty big balls
          And he’s got big balls,
          And she’s got big balls,
          But we’ve got the biggest balls of them all!
          Some balls are held for charity
          And some for fancy dress
          But when they’re held for pleasure,
          They’re the balls that I like best.
          And my balls are always bouncing,
          To the left and to the right.
          It’s my belief that my big balls should be held every night.
          I’ve got big balls
          I’ve got big balls
          And they’re such big balls
          Dirty big balls
          And he’s got big balls,
          And she’s got big balls,
          But we’ve got the biggest balls of them all!
          And I’m just itching to tell you about them
          Oh, we have such wonderful fun
          Seafood cocktail
          Crabs
          Crayfish

  5. Huh. Probably the right call. But, refusal to apply for asylum in Mexico first should result in an automatic loss in their asylum case, unless they can show that Mexico isn’t safe for them, either (which may not be that difficult, TBH).

    1. I agree. If the asylum applications are to be taken seriously, then forcing the applicants to stay in another country isn’t genuine asylum.

      1. And Jeff proves he doesnt understand international asylum policies!

        1. So, Jesse, please show us the “international asylum policy” which says that it’s okay for refugees seeking asylum to be forced to stay in the country from which they are fleeing.

          1. They’re not fleeing Mexico but countries further south. Therefore, making them stay in Mexico isn’t making them stay in the country they are fleeing. But, yes, asylum seekers should be allowed into the US in order to ensure their safety. But, being detained in a US Customs detention center is fairly safe. If it less safe than what they are fleeing, I’m not sure what else we could do, other than having no border at all, which is anarchy, not libertarianism.

            1. Well, some are actually from Mexico.

              1. Almost no one coming from Mexico has a claim of asylum. And you agree the rest should be turned back WITHOUT review.

                1. No, I don’t. Let them make their case and let each person be judged individually on the merits of his/her case.

                  How would YOU want to be treated in this situation? If you were genuinely fleeing persecution, would you want to be turned away without even accorded the opportunity to present your case because “oh all the other people around you are just scammers so screw you too”?

                  1. If I’m in a country where I am reasonably safe and not subject to persecution, I.e. Mexico, I can wait there for a hearing before coming to the US. That’s what we should require.

          2. Jeff, you fucking dumb piece of shit, these policies of return to Mexico dont involve Mexican nationals but central American nationals. Jeff, younfucking cumb piece of shit, international norms state younapply for asylum on the first country safe from persecution, you dont pick and choose a country of choice. Jeff, you fucking dumb piece of shit, try educating yourself on the basics of a policy before jumping in feet first. Okay?

        2. And while he’s at it, perhaps Jesse can offer his thoughts on how to implement MPP while still avoiding refoulement.

          1. The law does not require applicants if asylum to be allowed 2 year work visas or even entry into the country. See Syrian refugee camps. I cant help your reliance on ignorance Jeff. Asylum seekers dont have a right to pick and choose the country they want to go to, full stop. Your wishes and ignorant dreams go against established norms.

  6. Maybe the Volokh people can get on this – If you don’t apply at the first safe country you come to, is a 3rd country obliged even to consider your asylum application?

    1. I believe the international covenant at play is the 1951 Refugee Convention, which pretty much allows the signatory countries to set their own standards, so it would be a question of US law, which may not address the issue due to it not being an issue in the past. Regardless, Congress could pass a law denying asylum to anyone who hasn’t applied in countries they passed through.
      But. IANAL

    2. The only “third safe country” agreement I know of is between the US and Canada.

      1. I believe this is the standard in Europe. Hence Italy’s headaches.

  7. “Nothing in the ruling prohibits the U.S. from detaining would-be asylum-seekers until they can be granted a court hearing.”

    You mean except for the Democrats’ refusal to fund facilities? You mean except for human decency? Making asylum seekers wait outside the country was both the rational and decent thing to do. Daring the Trump administration to go build concentration camps to house whole families for years at a time while they wait for their asylum hearing is unconscionable. This judge should be ashamed of himself.

    At some point, securing the border becomes the only rational policy, and we passed that point a long time ago.

    At some point, we’ll need to reform whatever laws we have as they pertain to horseshit asylum claims, and we passed that point a long time ago, too.

    1. You may not remember this because your brain is damaged but there were deals to be made when Republicans controlled Congress but Trump ruined that chance by negotiating in bad faith.

  8. This is ridiculous. The asylum should be in the country bordering where they left. They may as well claim asylum in Sweden

  9. America is fucked right up the ass without any lube.

    1. I don’t know, that ass gets spit on plenty.

  10. In 2016, there were 92,990 asylum decisions made on whether asylum seekers had an established fear of persecution. Only 73,081 were considered credible. Those are the ones who are given a court date–usually more than two years out. Pending their court date, they’re given legal residency in the United States and typically released to await their court date. Of those 73,081 cases adjudicated in 2016, 22,045 were granted asylum.

    http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS /Outreach/Upcoming National Engagements/PED_CredibleFearReas onableFearStatisticsNationalityReport.pdf

    Running those numbers, if you claim asylum at the border, you have about an 80% chance of being given residency in the U.S., for two years or more, pending your court date.

    Only 30% of those who are given residency pending their hearing are ultimately granted asylum.

    The other 70% are either denied asylum by a judge (and presumably deported voluntarily or otherwise) or never show up to their hearing and become illegal immigrants.

    In short, 75% of those who claim asylum are never granted asylum according to the law, but this judge is absurdly suggesting that the Trump administration should keep these people in detention for years at a time if they’d rather not release them into the wild?

    1. The judge isn’t suggesting a course of action either way with regard to detaining asylum applicants. He’s just saying that his ruling doesn’t prohibit the government from detaining the applicants if that is their choice.

      1. “The judge isn’t suggesting a course of action either way”

        Is that true because you say so? Or is the judge using the observation that Trump could choose to do something no one would ever do as a justification–as if he weren’t really infringing on the proper discretion of the president?

        The judge’s ruling also doesn’t prohibit Trump from offering asylum seekers new jobs working for NASA. So what?

        1. Why don’t you take it up with Judge Seebord.

          1. Why bother when you seem to understand what he means better than he does?

            1. Just read the damn injunction. It’s linked in the article you know.

        2. Ken, you seemed to have confused “legally permissible” and “politically possible” in your assessment of “what Trump can do”. The judge is simply stating that it is entirely legal for Trump to commit political suicide and just because it would be political suicide does not make it something Trump cannot legally do.

          1. The fact that Trump remains perfectly free to commit political suicide is not an excellent justification for ruling perfectly constitutional activity is outside the bounds of the Constitution–and isn’t that what the judge is purposely implying?

            The observation that Trump remains perfectly free to commit political suicide has no proper place in this argument. Leaving people outside the country to await their asylum hearing is legal and constitution or not regardless of whether Trump is free to commit political suicide.

      2. What the fuck are you talking about? Yes the judge has entered a course of action, status quo. There is nothing in the asum law that requires and applicant stay in country. Stop being fucking ignorant Jeff. This judge simply disagreed with executive judgement.

        1. Huh. So this judge really has no legal basis, he just disagrees with Trump? Like every other judge disagreeing with Trump? They’re all part of the Deep State thwarting the Will Of The People? Does Q-Anon know?

          1. You’re so out of it, you don’t even understand what the judge is saying or why. You’re so obtuse, it’s amazing. It’s not that you’re being intellectually dishonest this time. You’re just so oblivious, you don’t even understand what’s being said. If you ever find yourself in a business meeting, do yourself a favor and try not to say anything.

            1. Yes. That is Jeff’s entire schtick. No analysis. Just placard protest based analysis of his favorite feel good policies. He doesnt investigate shit and doesnt educate himself on any aspect of any policy. He just says stupid shit at a facial level and runs away.

        2. Jesse, I’m pretty strong on the anti illegal immigrant front. But, if somebody comes running to you claiming to be in fear of their life, it seems prudent to first ensure that they are safe before adjucating whether they technically qualify for asylum.

          1. You are assuming that Jesse actually gives a shit about these people.

            See, it’s possible to be, like you, opposed to illegal immigration without being a flaming asshole. But far too often, the opponents of illegal immigration are like Jesse – expressing their opposition while simultaneously trashing the immigrants themselves.

            Does Jesse want more Democrats? Because that is how you get more Democrats. Make everyone believe that opposing illegal immigration means you’re a cold-hearted asshole.

            1. Hmm. Im not comfortable with chemjef agreeing with me. His point about being ruthlessness birthing new dems is on point. Securing the border does not require us to become extremists.
              That said, humanitarianism does not require us to suicide our culture. We have every right to secure our border, and we have every right to determine whom we will allow to immigrate. That doesn’t mean that we treat asylum seekers as criminals.

            2. Jeff, stop pretending you give a shit about anyone. How many hours or dollars are youd devoting to these people?

            3. And Jeff, we allow 1 million a year through legal migration. Doubling that with 1 million through illegal means is being an asshole to those that follow the process.

          2. “if somebody comes running to you claiming to be in fear of their life, it seems prudent to first ensure that they are safe”

            If someone is chasing them with a gun or machete, fine. If they are wandering through a desolate desert, FUCK no. Deport them without review.

            1. “if somebody comes running to you claiming to be in fear of their life, it seems prudent to first ensure that they are safe”

              We are legally obligated by a ratified treaty to ensure these people’s safety.

              Trump isn’t disputing that.

              The question is that if they’re fleeing persecution in Guatemala, and they’re applying for asylum from Mexico, then why aren’t they safe from Guatemalan persecution in Mexico?

              1. Moreover, he’s not even disputing that they have no right to asylum in the U.S. He’s simply requiring them to wait in Mexico until their case is heard.

          3. Denver, the mass majority of migrants using asylum claims are from central America. They have been offered asylum in Mexico, they refused those offers. The persecution they faced was in their home countries not Mexico. It would be like someone in danger running past the first officer they saw, then running past the second officer, finally stopping at the third officer all because they like the third officers name more. Maybe he hands out candy to people he helps. These people were safe in Mexico. The camps in mexico are no more dangerous than the ones in the US. Their safety is already set. They’ve been offered work permits in mexico. There is no claim that they have to be within the borders of the US for safety.

            1. “The persecution they faced was in their home countries not Mexico.”

              If indeed they even faced persecution to begin with, rather than simply having been coached to demand asylum if caught.

    2. The judge is only “absurdly suggesting” that Trump act within the bounds of the law, and not improvise solutions that disregard it.

      Reading the judge’s opinion, it becomes clear that Trump’s whole argument here was a colossal hand-wave. On point after point, they’re asserting the authority to disregard the statutory language, citing “prosecutorial discretion.”‘

      Sound familiar?

    1. The Democrats had better slow the excitement down, otherwise America will get excitement-fatigue.

      1. No such thing. Besides, it’s understandable many Democrats are eager to run in 2020 since victory in the general is guaranteed. Voters won’t forgive the Republican Party for selling out to a hostile foreign power. (Plus the economy is in the toilet.)

        1. “economy is in the toilet.”

          A heated seat, perfumed wash, blow dry toilet.

    2. 1) He may be a Democrat, but he is not “exciting”.

      2) Even if he were exciting, you wrote, “another exciting Democrat”, which suggests that another one of the Democrats already in the field is exciting. Which one is that?

      The only one’s I’ve seen in the field are revolting (rather than exciting) in the same old boring way.

      1. You don’t think it’s exciting that Kamala Harris could become not only the first woman President, but the first woman of color President?

        1. So you admit there isn’t anything exciting about Kamala Harris yet!

        2. I also think it is exciting that the world will end in 12 years.
          And about as likely.

        3. If by exciting you mean in the kind of way that someone is trying to steal all my money is exciting, then yeah.

          1. Swalwell wants to seize your guns so the government will shoot you dead for resisting or failure to comply.

    3. The most exciting thing about Swalwell becoming President is that he can declassify all the parts of the Mueller report that show Trump selling out the US for a fistful of rubles and Trump will finally be exposed as the Kremlin’s puppet that Swalwell knows him to be. And Mueller’s treason in covering up for Trump, as well as Barr’s treason for covering up for Mueller and the traitorous main-stream media for covering up for both Barr and Mueller. It’s traitors and treason all the way down! Except for Swalwell and Schiff and Rachel Maddow – possibly Maxine Waters – those are the only clear-eyed rational people left in the entire country and everybody else is in Putin’s pocket. Swalwell has graphs and charts and decoded passages from Moby Dick that prove all this, too, so you can’t get away with dismissing him as a conspiracy nutter.

    4. Why is this obviously racist, misogynist white male trying to deny people of color and/or females the presidency?

    5. That boy deserves a good ol’ fashioned extrajudicial hanging.

    6. “Another exciting Democrat enters the Presidential race!”

      It’s RBG who’s resigning the SCOTUS to galvanize the Ds, right? I know that must be it!

  11. Somebody give us some good news!

    How’s RGB holding up? Still on borrowed time, amirite?

    1. Well, Kennedy is about to start on FNC.

      1. Kennedy is mine; I saw her first! 1980 something, as a VJ on MTV, when they actually played music videos. Mine. I will kill you. Mine.
        Not really, but I do like her.

        1. Sorry, I called her first.

          1. Doubt it. I was watching her in the 80s

            1. You had your chance. Time’s up!

    2. She was last seen at a beach house propped up by the pool.

  12. I presume the legal reasoning supporting this ruling is absolute nonsense which will be overturned ASAP, since Boehm chooses not to mention it at all.

    1. The gist of the argument seems to be, DHS has a legal obligation to make sure that the asylum applicants are actually receiving some measure of asylum, and DHS can’t really fulfill this legal obligation if the applicants are in a different country.

      1. Nonsense. We could just invade.

      2. chemjeff radical individualist|4.8.19 @ 9:48PM|#
        “The gist of the argument seems to be, DHS has a legal obligation to make sure that the asylum applicants are actually receiving some measure of asylum, and DHS can’t really fulfill this legal obligation if the applicants are in a different country.”

        If that is true, it assumes the US government is required to accept un-examined claims.

      3. Jeff…. do you think we import Syrian refugees applying for asylum? Can you try thinking through your idiocy just once? Generally we keep applicants in the country of their application. This judge is ignoring norms because he disagrees with policy. There was no legal backing in his order. If you were able to even think rationally a tiny bit you would realize that. So far all you have done is appeal to authority the judge said so, and appeal to emotion, think of the children. One day you need to learn how to appeal to actual reason and logic.

      4. No.

        The plaintiffs’ argument here had two steps. First, that the DHS lacked statutory authority to require them to return to Mexico. And then, second, even if the DHS did have such authority, it exercised it in a way that violated the APA or the implementing statutes/regulations relating to refoulement (i.e., the “some measure of asylum” point you’re making).

        There is nothing in the preliminary injunction to support the contention that the DHS’s policy failed to live up to the U.S.’s obligations simply because asylum seekers would be located over the border.

    2. There’s a “close” procedural question that might require that the case be re-filed in the D.C. district. But on the merits, the DHS’s reasoning seemed pretty baseless.

  13. I’m a rock-ribbed Trump supporter, of course, but i’m Still waiting on this shockingly authoritarian rhetoric to actually turn into anything of action. Trump is what expelling all the rapists to Mexico what social democracy is to anarchism-communism. What an embarrassment! I wanted Trump to expel anyone named Muhammad and all he’s done is run his mouth. I need to find a more nutty GOP crackpot, I guess.

    1. OBL tries a new sock. I can largely ignore this one also.

      1. Whatever we name ourselves we’ve got to make sure that when we refer to libertarian policies that means it means we only apply libertarianism to rich White guys that don’t want to pay any more taxes. Libertarianism, of course, doesn’t apply to poor people looking for mutually beneficial labor agreements because of the laws they’ve broken. I mean, uh-huh u-huh u-huh, Jesus Christ libertarianism is about rule of law and if you don’t follow those laws how can libertarianism apply to you provided you just don’t go ahead and get a high powered lawyer that you can hire. Then libertarianism might apply to you. I guess then it would matter who the judge was then maybe. Hmmm…

  14. Background Note on the Safe Country Concept and Refugee Status
    EC/SCP/68
    By UNHCR | 26 July 1991

    See section B, note 11.

    Note: separated url due to 50 character word limit in comments
    https://www.unhcr.org/excom/scip/3ae68ccec/
    background-note-safe-country-concept
    -refugee-status.html

    1. Not griping about the cut-space approach, but got a summary?

  15. So, according to the ruling, those who are claiming asylum ( as opposed to those who are fleeing conditions they might have brought on themselves; see Venezuela for example) must choose to stay in Mexico (where I’m sure Soros is providing support, right?), or cross the border and be incarcerated until the issue is settled?
    Gee, some tasty burritos at Soro’s expense sounds just right!
    I’m on the exchange of labor side of the issue, and while Trump took a hit here, who cares?

  16. Incidentally, we’re obligated by treaty to do things that some people in this thread don’t like.

    The flip side of pointing out that the Paris Accords and the Iran Nuclear Agreement were completely illegitimate because they weren’t ratified by the Senate is that it requires us to accept that we are subject to treaties that were ratified by the Senate. My understanding is that the Convention on Refugees was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1968. If that is the case, then we have some clear obligations to refugees–whether we like it or not.

    Among those obligations:

    The contracting states shall:

    Provide identity papers for refugees (Article 27)
    Provide travel documents for refugees (Article 28)
    Provide the possibility of assimilation and naturalization to refugees (Article 34)

    The contracting states shall not:

    Impose penalties on refugees who entered illegally in search of asylum if they present themselves without delay. (Article 31)
    Expel refugees (Article 32)
    Forcibly return or “refoul” refugees to the country they’ve fled from (Article 33).

    Refugees shall be treated at least like nationals in relation to:

    elementary education (Article 22)
    public relief and assistance (Article 23)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…..f_Refugees

    1. If you’re an honest person who doesn’t like these things, then you should argue that we should find a way to withdraw from it if that’s legally possible.

      The perfect thing NOT to do is to act like a bunch of dishonest progressives and pretend that the First and Second Amendments don’t really say what they say because they don’t like religion and guns.

    2. The problem is that these people are not refugees, they are migrants wanting to free load

      “As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

      Which of those reasons do they fall under? Economic doesn’t count.

      1. “”As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951”

        So none of these people is a refugee.

      2. My understanding is that the U.S. is a party to the 1967 Protocol.

        “Where the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees had restricted refugee status to those whose circumstances had come about “as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951”, as well as giving states party to the Convention the option of interpreting this as “events occurring in Europe” or “events occurring in Europe or elsewhere”, the 1967 Protocol removed both the temporal and geographic restrictions.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..f_Refugees

  17. Representative government is dead.
    Now it’s nothing but deep state coups and importation of a 5th column, shielded by judicial tyranny and state supremacist propaganda.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed by the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    I don’t wish violence upon the migrants.
    I urge violence against our domestic enemies, no matter their official titles.

    1. Fittingly, the human wave tactic is characteristic of Communism – as seen on the eastern front in WWII and in Korea by the Soviets, North Koreans, and Chinese.
      Welcome to 5th generation warfare.
      What a wonderful distraction Russian “infiltration” of the internet is (nevermind the Chinese…) – I guess it prevents us from the infiltration of millions of human pawns into US territory. All for progress

      1. The proper way to counter this Human Wave Tactic is with rifle fire.
        President Trump should call up the militia and let us secure the border.

    2. deep state? lol how cliche.

  18. That’s exactly where they should stay until their case has been proven legit. Mexico needs to be taking care of their border.

  19. A member of the Resistance, masquerading as a Federal Judge, makes up his own laws in a effort to advance the democrat agenda. Just another day at the 9th.

  20. I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  21. At some point these cases are going to make it to the Supreme court, which is probably going to rule that random judges are not in charge of American foreign policy or national defense. That’s my prediction, which may be wrong, but it’s still my expectation.

    1. These lower court judges know that they will likely be reversed.

      Its a time delay game. By the time their bad decisions get to the SOCTUS, they hope Trump wont be reelected or some other event that allows them to keep #resisting

    2. You’re right, “random judges” should not be, and are not, setting foreign policy or deciding matters of national defense. In this case, Congress has quite clearly delineated what Trump has the authority to do. He would prefer to ignore restrictions on his power.

      You, I gather, support his arbitrary and capricious rule.

  22. Does the present law require DHS to release the asylum seekers in any particular location after their 3 months of detention? If not, DHS should give all asylum seekers a free 1-way Greyhound bus ticket to U.S. District Judge Richard Seebord’s town of residence. I suspect they’re all much safer there than right on the border with all that drug activity, etc. I’d love to see 100,000 people dropped off in his tony neighborhood.

  23. More accurately 100,000 people per month. At least Judge Seebord will have plenty people available to have his landscaping done at a good price.

  24. More accurately, 100,000 people a month. At least Judge Seebord would have plenty of people available to do his landscaping and housekeeping/babysitting at a good rate. I’m guessing the rates for high school upper middle class teenagers for such tasks was getting a bit pricey.

  25. Deport all illegals and enforce all asylum rules. This means that over 75% of all asylum claims are bogus.

    Being poor is NOT a valid claim for asylum.

  26. I presume that those who are cheering this ruling will support providing funds to house all of these asylum seekers?

    Nah, of course not.

    1. Next they are going to complain that these people are being held in deplorable conditions and must be released in the US and then find another friendly and unscrupulous judge.

      1. “The little babies are being kept in cages! And they’re being tortured!”

        1. That’s how you keep the meat pale and tender.

  27. At some point, these bureaucrats need to be tossed out. No special privileges just because this one says “judge” in front of it.

  28. So we put up 10,000 Quonset huts in Big Bend and buy 100,000 fans – – – –

  29. Fleeing gang violence? Take it to CNN Eric. You sound like a liberal shill.

  30. They are not asylum seekers. They are economic migrants who know how to take advantage of the law. I would know, I am from Honduras. They’ve got you all duped. No one is getting killed if they return to Honduras. Jesus Christ. This is taking away from cases of REAL persecuted people.

  31. If the (illegal) immigrants/migrants can’t be detained at the border, and can’t be sent back across the border, and can’t be released in El Paso, or Phoenix, or wherever, then this is a problem truly without solution. But suppose they could be released in a state which has not yet been burdened? I propose Hawaii. Or interior Alaska. Or western Kansas/Nebraska. Hawaii seems best to me: the climate is mild enough to minimize housing cost. 5,000 a week for six months or a year would ease the burden on California, Texas and Arizona without really inconveniencing anyone.

    1. I suggest Sweden.

  32. Eric, how many are at your house? You’ve got room.

  33. Just when you thought you’d heard the last of Joe Arpaio, his tent jails are needed more than ever.

  34. In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

  35. Google pay me $280 to 390$ each hour for internet working from home.i have made $35K on this month on line do business from home.i’m a ordinary understudy and that i paintings 2 to 5 hours in keeping with day in my greater time efficiently from home..every body can perform this interest and win extra dollars on-line in low renovation via truly take after this connection and take after subtle factors

    HERE>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com

  36. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  37. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  38. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  39. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  40. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  41. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  42. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  43. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  44. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  45. How does this court have jurisdiction over Mexico?

  46. Hopefully Trump will get this to the SCOTUS as quickly as possible, and that they firmly slap down the idiot Seebord who made the ruling.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.