Refugees

A Federal Judge Has Put Trump's Anti-Asylum Rule on Ice

His border lawlessness keeps growing

|

The Trump administration's plan to basically end America's asylum program as it exists was put on ice (no pun intended) after dueling court rulings yesterday. U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, refused to issue a preliminary injunction to block the administration from turning away any asylum seeker that arrived at the Southern border via another country without first applying for asylum in that country. Given that all these asylum seekers come by foot, after having traversed several countries, this would pretty much spell the doom of the asylum program.

Trump's success on this front would be a double blow for the kind of humane and pro-growth immigration policies that Reason has long advocated, given that there are also rumors the Trump administration is planning to end the refugee program next year. After slashing the refugee cap in half to 45,000 and then refusing to fill even that, it is now flirting with further slashing the cap to "zero." This has long been the fantasy and aspiration of White House aide Steve Miller, the ultra-restrictionist grandson of Jewish refugees.

It's unclear if there would be strong legal grounds to challenge the administration's prospective assault on the refugee program, but there clearly are grounds for challenge avilable to those hoping to use the asylum system. As I noted last week, under international and U.S. law:

[T]he administration is required to hear migrants' cases unless they are coming through countries with whom the U.S. has a Safe Third Country Agreement. Such a country has to offer a similar level of safety, security, and due process as the United States. The only country that currently has such an agreement with America is Canada. The agreement makes it incumbent upon Canada to consider the asylum petition of migrants on its soil rather than just letting them into the United States. Only if Canada denies their petition can they apply for asylum in America.

The administration is trying to strong-arm Mexico and Guatemala into signing similar agreements, which would require these countries to offer permanent asylum to migrants rather than merely temporarily warehousing them. But even if these countries agree, U.S. courts are unlikely to be convinced that the new rule is kosher. Why? Because these countries, particularly Guatemala, aren't "safe."

San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar basically agreed with this and, literally within hours on the Kelly ruling, issued an injunction barring the administration from implementing its asylum ban.

"The court recognized, as it did in the first asylum ban [when the administration tried to bar those entering from between ports of entry from applying for asylum even as it blocked them from entering from official ports] that the administration was doing an end-run around asylum protections enacted by Congress," an ACLU lawyer, who had sued the administration, noted.

The administration's argument was that the statute also gives it authority to implement additional "bars," or conditions on prospective asylum seekers. But that doesn't mean it can impose conditions that essentially overturn the will of Congress.

Given the split in the courts, this case will most likely fall in the Supreme Court's lap. It's unclear whether a ruling will come before the next election, but both sides' strategy is clear: Immigration advocates are trying to run out the clock on the Trump presidency. Meanwhile, the administration is trying to load the bases so that in case Trump gets re-elected and the Supreme Court rules in its favor, it can hit the ground running in his second term.

But this is not the only immigration-related case that raises the stakes in the next election. Scott Shackford wrote earlier this week about the new "expedited removal" rules that the administration implemented in the dead of night this week that allow immigration authorities to stop anyone anywhere in the country and demand to see their papers, not just in the 100-mile zone adjacent to the border as is (unfortunately) the case right now.

It's ostensive purpose is to deport undocumented immigrants who don't have long roots in the country. But it'll potentially affect everyone given that individuals don't come branded as "unauthorized" on their foreheads right now.

If you are stopped and can't prove that you've been in the country for two years, you would be subject to deportation. You will be entitled to no legal representation because immigration courts aren't required to provide any. Your only recourse would be to claim a "credible fear" that your life would be endangered in the country they were thinking of deporting you to. And if the arresting officer determines that you are not entitled to a hearing, then it's over for you. Basically, it means that an immigration agent would be judge, jury, and executioner all in one.

This will basically prod everyone—citizen and non-citizen—alike to carry their passports or birth certificates at all times to avoid the fate of Francisco Galicia, an American citizen who was just released from a detention camp pending deportation after three weeks without a shower or basic amenities. Indeed, even before this new rule for expanding expedited removals to anywhere in the country, due process for detention and deportation had been eroded so badly that about 1 percent of the inmates in immigration detention nationwide at any given time were citizens. In 2010 alone, over 4,000 U.S. citizens were detained or deported as aliens. Between 2003 and 2010, more than 20,000 Americans suffered the same fate.

Civil rights and immigration advocacy organizations tell me they are getting ready to sue this rule within the next few weeks.

Basically, they'll argue that the rule was issued without prior notice or a comment period and therefore improperly implemented. More importantly, they'll claim that there is no way to enforce this rule without some form of unconstitutional racial profiling to establish reasonable suspicion.

Sadly, given that Congress simply won't step in to rein in this president, the courts are the country's only recourse against his growing border lawlessness.

Advertisement

NEXT: Video of Rep. Ilhan Omar Allegedly Calling for People to 'Be More Fearful of White Men' Is Fake News

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. “lawlessness” is a) when the POTUS ignores the law, and b) ignores court orders, which is a) what YOU, Shikha, advocte for a&b) what we had with the last administration.

    Following the law, and dutifully appealing every shoddy forum-shopped decision from a low-level activist judge is the Opposite of lawlessness

    1. I like how she calls put trump but is silent that generally rule jurisdiction is the d.c. circuit which didnt implement an injunction and instead applauds a SF district ruling as correct.

      And her first premise is a fucking joke, that trump is trying to end asylum claims. hes responded to advertised abuse of the system she happily applauds. Shika is a fucking joke. Asylum laws are not set up as a means to open borders.

      1. She doesn’t care. None of this will change until we start exiling progtards.

        1. By the way,
          Do Jeffy is neck deep in it today with all his shitposting below.

  2. And Mexico is indeed “safe”, if you are fleeing supposed persecution in Guatemala. And Guatemala is indeed “safe”, if you are fleeing supposed persecution in Honduras.
    Being “safe” is not the same as being in the nicest most luxurious accommodation. A Red Roof Inn isn’t “unsafe” during a hurricane, just because there is a Four Seasons up the beach.
    If they are “unsafe” because there is crime and violence in Mexico, then they are also “unsafe” in our sanctuary cities, which are rife with their own murderous gangs.

    You mendacious hack.

    1. You are right that the “safe” in “safe third country” does not mean “luxurious”.

      Here is what “safe” means in the context of US law:

      https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim

      “(A) Safe third country
      Paragraph (1) shall not apply [granting asylum] to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.”

      So just asserting “Mexico’s a safe country” isn’t enough.

      And by the way, Mexico is no longer considering a Safe Third Country agreement anyway. Turns out other nations don’t appreciate trying to be bullied into an agreement.

      1. I mean, sure, perhaps Mexico might meet the standard of “safe” third country, by some meaningful metric. But it’s hard to see how Guatemala does. And it’s especially hard to see how Trump can claim with a straight face that Guatemala is a “safe” country after he’s spent all this time bashing those countries as shitholes.

        1. It’s amazing how racist you fucks actually are down where you live. You can’t differentiate between any central or south American countries. It’s all just one big den of oppression. Most of these asylum seekers aren’t facing any of the threats to life or freedom outlined in your bolded portion IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. To the extent that any of them are political refugees, they are out of danger to life and freedom as soon as they are outside the jurisdiction of their government, or another government that fully cooperates with their government.

          1. Jeff has always been a racist fuck.

            1. Uh huh sure whatever, Censor Jesse.
              I’m surprised you found time away from underneath Senator Hawley’s desk to come here to post.

              1. What’s wrong we’re there from that they need to come here?

            2. So many things wrong with that shitposting pederast.

          2. The bolded portion in the law that I cited, is not about the nature of the persecution that the refugee is fleeing. It is about the nature of the conditions in the host country to which the refugee fled. EVEN IF e.g. the political persecution that a refugee from Guatemala is fleeing is not present in Mexico, there can still be other conditions in Mexico which make that nation not “safe” according to the standard set forth in the law above.

            It’s all just one big den of oppression.

            This is closer to how Trumpists view Central America, except it’s one big shithole instead.

            1. So your contention then is that refugees ostensibly fleeing violence and/or political persecution in central and south America are facing threats upon their lives and/or freedom on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion in Mexico? Are you sure about that?

              1. Maybe they are, maybe not. The evidence suggests that the majority of asylum seekers from Central America don’t have valid asylum claims. I fully acknowledge such reality. But the persecution that they may be fleeing in e.g. Guatemala may be different than the persecution that they may be subjected to in Mexico.

                I understand that it is commonplace that many refugees claim violence at the hands of drug gangs in Guatemala and El Salvador as the basis for their asylum application. It may be that Mexico does not have the same level of drug gang problem that the Northern Triangle does, but they may have other forms of oppression – such as, perhaps, persecution of ethnic minorities. That Mexico has less of one problem, but more of another type of problem, doesn’t necessarily mean Mexico is a “safe country” overall. It is not so cut and dry.

                1. Thanks to all the illegals we have big drug gang problems here too.

          3. When asked why they are coming to the US, any of the ones that say “job” or “money” are NOT valid asylum seekers. Economic immigrants are not refugees. The ones that have been trained to say they have fears, but who don’t really have credible fears, have just committed fraud and are not refugees. The 10 or so who can demonstrate actual credible fears would be well served to head directly to the first US consulate they can find once they escape their home country. Making the treacherous trek and violating the US border illegally is not a good way to make your case when you could easily have stopped by any of the several consulates:

            U.S. Consulate General Ciudad Juarez
            U.S. Consulate General Guadalajara
            U.S. Consulate General Hermosillo
            U.S. Consulate General Matamoros
            U.S. Consulate General Merida
            U.S. Consulate General Monterrey
            U.S. Consulate General Nogales
            U.S. Consulate General Nuevo Laredo
            U.S. Consulate General Tijuana

            1. Make that “several consulates in Mexico:”

        2. If you didnt notice your bolded words dont include crine nor economic reasons you illiterate fuck. That’s why most of the migrants continue to america. Not to escape the persecution highlighted. Way to disprove your own argument.

          1. ONCE AGAIN:
            The bolded portion in the law that I cited, is not about the nature of the persecution that the refugee is fleeing. It is about the nature of the conditions in the host country to which the refugee fled.

            1. HEY VERN!! Looky here at all them fancy words what been writ by some city slicker college fella! Bet them boys ain’t smart enough to reckon a coon hound from a possum, I tells you what!

            2. 8 U.S. Code § 1158. Asylum

              The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

              Economic opportunity is not a valid reason for refugee status under United Nations guidelines.

              “Although the term economic migrant is often confused with the term refugee, economic migrants leave their regions primarily due to harsh economic conditions, not fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group. Economic migrants are generally not eligible for asylum.”

              1. You are exactly right. Economic opportunity is NOT a legitimate reason to claim asylum, NOR SHOULD IT BE. I totally agree with you there. So instead of having economic migrants making bogus claims of asylum just for the chance of economic opportunity, wouldn’t it make more sense to have a more open legal process for economic migrants to migrate legally, so that they wouldn’t have to abuse the asylum process just to try to come here?

                1. We’re forcing them to lie and fuck up the asylum system for legitimate refugees because we don’t have an open admission policy with no limits, you see. Goddamn evil Americans. By the sounds of it, these poor migrants are facing threats to their lives and liberty on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion right here in the USA! When will Canada do the right thing and offer these poor people asylum from this unsafe third country?

                  1. “We” are not “forcing” anyone to apply for asylum. “We” (meaning the state, I suppose) are giving few other options for those who wish to come here for economic opportunity. The wait time for “waiting in line” to come here the legal way can take as long as 20-30 years. That is an absurd amount of time for anyone to wait in line.

                    1. I want the $20 bill in your wallet.
                      Give it to me or you’ll force me steal it.

                      You’re a fucking idiot

                    2. But we still naturalize 1M+ new immigrants every year.

                      Just because the line in long, doesn’t excuse people who cut in line.

          2. He’s a bigger idiot than we could have imagined

        3. Guatemala is indeed safe, if you are fleeing political persecution in Honduras or El Salvador. Because they are different countries, you see, run by different people. If you are genuinely oppressed in El Salvador, you have nothing to fear from the Guatemalans.

          Did you bother to read your own bolded law? Do you understand it?

          1. Okay, maybe it will become clear with a concrete example.

            Suppose you are a gay Jew, and you are fleeing anti-gay persecution in Elbonia. You flee to neighboring Ishtar, which has a government that does not persecute gays. Great! But, they do persecute Jews. Oh no! So in fleeing anti-gay persecution in Elbonia, you now are subject to anti-Jew persecution in Ishtar. Is Ishtar a “safe country” according to the law? NO.

            Get it?

            1. But when Mexico offers asylum visas to Guatemalans and Hondurans, and they reject the asylum offers because they want jobs in the US your argument holds no water.

              Members of the migrant caravan headed to the U.S. border rejected an offer from Mexico to remain and chose in stead to continue their trek north.

              The announced plan by Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, called “Estas en Tu Casa,” Spanish for “This is Your Home,” offered the migrants temporary identification and work permits as well as medical care and housing, according to the BBC.

              “Today, Mexico extends you its hand,” Nieto told the migrants. “This plan is only for those who comply with Mexican laws and it’s a first step towards a permanent solution for those who are granted refugee status in Mexico.”

              While more than 1,700 members of the caravan accepted the offer, according to the Associated Press, thousands of others vowed to keep marching north.

              Our goal is not to remain in Mexico,” a migrant from Honduras told the AP. “Our goal is to make it to the [U.S.]. We want passage, that’s all.”

              “The majority plan to cross the border. And that’s my intention, too,” Jose Santos, from Honduras, told the BBC.

              “Because, yes, while life here is calmer than at home, it’s still not like the US where it would get better. That’s the goal,” he added, “to have a better life.”

              “Gracias!” but “No, we’re heading north!” others responded.

              1. But when Mexico offers asylum visas to Guatemalans and Hondurans, and they reject the asylum offers because they want jobs in the US your argument holds no water.

                Once again it all depends on the circumstances. Sure, for many of them, they are not interested in making a legitimate case for asylum and simply want more economic opportunities. For these individuals I suggest making legal migration easier, so that there is no need to try to gum up the asylum process with bogus claims just to try to come here.

                But in other cases, it is as if, as in my example, Ishtar offering “asylum” to gay Elbonians. If the gay Elbonian is also a Jew, it’s not much of an offer of asylum, is it?

                1. Can you articulate what danger the hypothetical refugees in your example are actually facing in Mexico such that the asylum in Mexico would actually be no asylum at all?

                  1. I don’t know. I’m not an expert on the detailed workings of Mexican law and society. It is within the realm of possibility that such a claim may be valid, and I will defer to more competent authorities on the matter. The point is, though, that just because a refugee has fled Guatemala into Mexico, does not necessarily mean that the refugee is “safe” in Mexico according to the law cited above.

                    1. But we know that something like 80% of the claims of refugee status are simply not credible. So we’re not really talking about whether the economic “refugees” are “safe”; it’s immaterial since their claims of persecution (required for refugee status) are fabricated in the first place.

            2. No you shitposting imbecile, you don’t get it.

              You can’t say Mexico is unsafe because of violent gangs, and then claim to want to come to Oakland or Chicago. And as you have been told repeatedly, crime and the economy are not valid reasons for Asylum in the first place.

              Get it? I don’t care if you do, just quit spouting your e-diarrhea all over the comment section

              1. You can’t say Mexico is unsafe because of violent gangs, and then claim to want to come to Oakland or Chicago.

                Read the law that I quoted above. A country is considered a “safe third country” if:

                the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection

        4. Haha. What’s even funnier is when people of the virtue signaling, victim mindset insist that we must be compassionate to these people fleeing oppression, poverty and violence……

          “But don’t you dare call the places they’re fleeing shitholes! That’s racist!”

          Haha. So many contradictions.

        5. So, Jeff, you’re saying Trump was correct and those countries are shitholes, eh?

  3. “Trump’s success on this front would be a double blow for the kind of humane and pro-growth immigration policies that Reason has long advocated”

    #ForeignersFirst
    #LibertariansForDestroyingAmerica

    1. #LibertariansForPuttingIndividualsFirst

      1. #aslongasthoseindividualsareillegalaliensandnotpeoepayingathirdoftheirincomeintaxes

        1. #LibertariansForPuttingAllIndividualsFirst

          1. As long as some individuals are paying the bills.

            1. You pay for your bills.
              I pay for my bills.
              They pay for their bills.
              Sound good?

              “Oh but wait, we have a welfare state now! They’re not paying for their bills!”

              Well okay, but that is a problem with the welfare state, not with immigration.

              “But fix/end the welfare state first! Then we’ll talk about immigration!”

              That’s not going to happen in the near future, if at all. So what would you like to do – wait until something next-to-impossible happens, or do what you can right now to increase liberty in the aggregate?

              1. Flooding a welfare system that we are oppressively taxed in order to maintain does not increase liberty in the aggregate, it increases liberty only for two extremely narrow groups of people.

                1. I suppose it depends on the value that you place on human liberty of motion. Evidently, it’s not all that high.

                  A migrant flees persecution to come here – GREAT!
                  A migrant gets a welfare benefit – OH THAT’S HORRIBLE, SEND HIM BACK TO THE PERSECUTION

                  1. The inability to obtain high wage employment and generous social safety net benefits is not persecution. And persecution in and of itself is not a meal ticket.

                    Mohammad Gulab should have a taxpayer subsidized yacht for what the US government put him through. Some welfare tourist who declines asylum in Mexico because he wants his shot at the big time is not fleeing persecution. And in neither case is aggregate liberty increased. Only the liberty of the individuals in question is increased.

                    1. You place low value on the liberty of association and the liberty of migration itself. I’m not terribly surprised.

                    2. You place low value on the liberty of association and the liberty of migration itself.

                      I place a higher value on the nation’s cities not turning into typhus-ridden favelas.

              2. “So what would you like to do – wait until something next-to-impossible happens, or do what you can right now to increase liberty in the aggregate?”

                I see no reason to import poverty that I will be expected to pay welfare to. It’s bad enough that I have to pay for welfare to citizens. By all means, let’s open the doors to all comers once we don’t have a welfare state. In the meantime, a few hoops to ensure that we are NOT, in fact, importing poverty is not crime against humanity–if it were, we’d have to bring 6B people into the US and pay for all of them.

                1. I see no reason to import poverty that I will be expected to pay welfare to.

                  Okay, then if you are against migration because you don’t want more poor people in the country, then why does this rule not apply to citizens?

                  Perhaps there should be a minimum income requirement before a woman is allowed to give birth. We don’t want any more moochers on the public dole, do we?

                  And if you say “oh that’s a strawman, I would never be in favor of restricting the liberty of women to give birth like that”, then consider why you treat migration via childbirth to be different than migration via crossing a border.

                  1. Because they’re brown. And they’re (gasp!) not following the rules! As an aside on that point, I’d love to see a Dalmia article immediately followed by a 2chilli joint where he extols the virtue of subverting laws and institutions to the rapturous applause of the commentariat.

                    1. To be fair I don’t think it is because “they’re brown”, but because they represent a change that they are not prepared to deal with.

                      What a lot of people don’t seem to realize, is that childbirth is just migration via other means, and no matter what happens with immigration policy, the America of 30 years in the future will be far different than the America of today. Because there is no option on the table for America staying exactly the same as it was.

                    2. Ethnicity may well not be a factor. But then you need to have another reason as to why conservatives and libertarians are so willing to turn away a large group of socially conservative, religious (Catholic, but close enough) people who are willing to work menial jobs without concern for wage and safety laws and whose experience with corrupt or practically non-existent government likely leads them to be distrustful of the concept of big government.

                    3. Because these new people represent a change to the traditional order of things.

                    4. Because these new people represent a change to the traditional order of things.

                      Yes, and not for the better.

                  2. “Perhaps there should be a minimum income requirement before a woman is allowed to give birth. We don’t want any more moochers on the public dole, do we?

                    And if you say “oh that’s a strawman, I would never be in favor of restricting the liberty of women to give birth like that”, then consider why you treat migration via childbirth to be different than migration via crossing a border.

                    I think I’m pretty consistent. I want to end the welfare state. I don’t want to pay for her new kid or the illegal immigrant. If I’m not being forced to pay for her kid illegal immigrants food, I don’t care what they do. So long as I am being forced to pay, I’m going to fight being forced to pay for more by increasing the scope of people for whom I am forced to pay. E.g., Democrats are now proposing US taxpayers should provide Medicare for al, INCLUDING illegal immigrants. That’s an expansion I’ll fight against, too.

      2. When everyone is first, no one is first.

        Being an anarchist, you’re not concerned that making #ForeignersFirst is a fundamental betrayal of representative government, and you’re tacitly endorsing the betrayal of the governed class by the governing class.

        #AnarchistsForTheGoverningClass

  4. The primary border lawlessness is perpetrated by the vast multitude who make bogus claims of qualifying for asylum so they can get into the country and then disappear.

    There are very few who actually meet the legal criteria for asylum.

    1. The primary border lawlessness is perpetrated by the vast multitude who make bogus claims of qualifying for asylum so they can get into the country and then disappear.

      Not true. Most show up to their hearings.

      1. And here is the source:

        https://www.justice.gov/eoir/workload-and-adjudication-statistics

        (I can only post one link, otherwise I’d post separate links for each number.)

        If you go to Table 14, you’ll see that there were, e.g., 162,060 asylum applications filed in 2018.
        And then if you go to Table 21, you’ll see that there were 7,091 removal orders of asylum applicants filed for in absentia applicants (the ones who didn’t show up). Which is only 4% of 162,060.

        1. Why did you use data from 2012 to 2017 when the noted abuse ramped up in early 2017 only. Why not quote current metrics you dishonest shit? See second graph.

          https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/09/data-indicates-illegal-immigrants-exploiting-u-s-asylum-policies-false-claims/

          Your data includes custodial appearances shithead. The problem now is due to the uptick the U.S. is dealing with an order of magnitude more asylum claims they cant keep in custody.

          1. If you actually go to the source, you’ll see that it includes data through FY 2018. The numbers from 2018 are not significantly any different.

            Amusing – I cite original DOJ statistics, you cite a Federalist article. Which one do you think is providing a more accurate picture?

            Plus, your source doesn’t even speak to the issue at hand, namely, how many asylum seekers don’t show up to court.

            Where is your right-wing-approved source for the number or percentage of asylum seekers who don’t show up to court?

      2. Actually lying cunthole, 44% don’t show up, and that’s of total asylum seekers. Of the subset of asylum seekers currently bumrushing the border from central America the number is higher. Most of the no-shows are central Americans.

        1. From your source:

          When using the Justice Department’s preferred metric, 44 percent of migrants who were not in custody failed to show up for their court proceedings.

          This figure counts migrants, not asylum seekers specifically, which is what Gilbert Martin was referring to. It also counts only the migrants who were not in custody, not all migrants.

          Plus, you’re citing the Washington Post. Aren’t they supposed to be FAKE NEWS?

          So, please take your accusations of lying and shove them up your ass.

          1. It also counts only the migrants who were not in custody, not all migrants.

            By definition you fucking knob. People in custody don’t get any option whether or not they show up for their hearings. The rate of absenteeism among the incarcerated is necessarily zero.

            Keep throwing a tantrum and attacking the credibility of a friendly news outlet because you don’t like the data. The funny part is that the subset of migrants we’re talking about has a higher rate of absenteeism, not a lower one.

            1. I’m not attacking the credibility of the Washington Post. I’m attacking your characterization of the data presented therein.

              Do you have a perhaps more authoritative source of data, beyond the DOJ statistics which I cited above, which calculates more conclusively what the in absentia rate is for asylum seekers?

              1. The problem, baby jeffrey, is that due to the backlog of asylum claims that screaming asylum gives an immigrant a 2 year visa.

                https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/07/05/fact-check-are-80-of-asylum-court-cases-not-approved/

                The fact is most cases are not approved dumbfuck. So this is an exploitation of asylum laws. What dont you fucking understand?

                1. I think it’s interesting to note that I’m going to the original sources – the law on safe third country, the original DOJ statistics – while you are just citing right-wing web pages.

                  It confirms what I’ve suspected about you, that you spend your life in a right-wing bubble and are mystified why everyone doesn’t share the same biases that you do.

                  1. “”while you are just citing right-wing web pages.””

                    Did you just do what you accused someone else of doing?
                    The data the article speaks of came from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR).

                2. You are right, most cases are not approved. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue is, how many asylum seekers don’t show up to court?

                  1. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW ADJUDICATION STATISTICS Asylum Decision Rates by Nationality

                    Document lists cases by

                    Nationality
                    Grants2
                    Grant Rate
                    Denials
                    Denial Rate
                    Other3
                    Other Rate
                    Admin Closure4
                    Admin Closure Rate
                    Total

                    https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1107366/download

                3. And by the way, before you squawk about it again.

                  I AGREE with you that a lot of the asylum seekers are abusing the process, they are not legitimate refugees, who are mainly economic migrants trying to come here by any way that they can.

                  I AGREE WITH YOU on this point. Get it?

                  But I do not believe the correct solution to this problem is to clamp down on the asylum process overall – instead make all forms of migration easier, including economic migration, so that there would be little need to try to abuse the asylum process in the first place.

                  1. “I AGREE with you that a lot of the asylum seekers are abusing the process, they are not legitimate refugees, who are mainly economic migrants trying to come here by any way that they can.

                    “I AGREE WITH YOU on this point. Get it?

                    “But I do not believe the correct solution to this problem is to clamp down on the asylum process overall – instead make all forms of migration easier, including economic migration, so that there would be little need to try to abuse the asylum process in the first place.”

                    We’ll have to agree to disagree, then, as to what the most effective solution is. I’d prefer that they accept Mexico’s offer for refugee status there, and make an application for asylum status in the US at a consulate in Mexico. When their case is to be heard, a short-term visa can be issued to allow them to travel freely to the US for their hearing, and return to Mexico if they are determined to not meet the burden of proof.

                    This seems like a fair process to me, and one that does not place any additional burden on US taxpayers.

                    1. This seems like a fair process to me, and one that does not place any additional burden on US taxpayers.

                      Well, there’s your problem. You and cytotoxic are talking at cross purposes.

      3. It IS true that most asylum seekers do actually show up for their hearing, because they know that otherwise their case will almost certainly be denied.

        OTOH, data on asylum decisions shows that from FY 2012 to FY 2017, the asylum denial rate was 79 percent for people from El Salvador, 88 percent for people from Mexico, 78 percent for people from Honduras and 75 percent for people from Guatemala.

        75% or more of all the claims are denied as not showing evidence of actual refugee status (persecution). It is a safe assumption that many of these were actually economic migrants who knowingly, falsely applied for asylum, having been told to do so by activists.

        1. You are correct, the in absentia rate for asylum seekers is very low. You are also correct that most asylum claims are denied.

          See, it is possible to have a productive discussion without resorting to gaslighting or trying to deny basic facts. Jesse and friends should take note.

          1. Sure it is. I always try to be sensible.

            I’ll point out that the above denial rate extends back well into the Obama administration, predating Trump’s antics by several years.

            The high denial rate, and the concomitant assumption of a high rate of false claims, to me, begs for an administrative solution. Not sure that Trumps course of action is the best way to go about it, but neither do I think that your “throw open the doors and let everyone in, welfare state burdens be damned!” is a good plan either.

            You seem to have no qualms about putting the government’s gun in my face and forcing me to pay for welfare for illegal aliens. I take exception to that, as not being very libertarian either.

            1. I don’t like the welfare state. I want to see it abolished as well. But it really does boil down to trying to choose the least bad option.

              Which is worse – to acquiesce to limited welfare benefits (at the state level for the vast majority) for a subset of migrants who come here, who consume welfare at a similar rate compared to native-born citizens of a similar socio-economic background – or to acquiesce to a police state where EVERY citizen’s liberties are curtailed in the name of ‘securing the border’? I don’t want either, truly I don’t, but if forced to choose, I will choose the former over the latter, because I think it increases liberty overall in the aggregate. It is not the perfect solution, it is not what I want for Libertopia, but based in the world that we are in, I think it’s the best option.

              1. Or rather, least bad option.

                1. And I disagree. I think the least bad option here is probably not Trump’s actions nor your proposal. If you’re seeking refugee status and have successfully escaped the country you claim is persecuting you, please accept the refugee status that Mexico is offering, and feel free to apply for refugee status at any US consulate in Mexico and await the adjudication of your claim. I think this is the least bad option.

                  1. No need to keep trading this disagreement back and forth. You are unlikely to convince me to support you solution, and I suspect the same about you vis-a-vis mine. I see your point, I just disagree with it.

  5. 8 U.S.C. § 1182 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 8. Aliens and Nationality § 1182. Inadmissible aliens

    f)  Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

    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.

  6. In 2010 alone, over 4,000 U.S. citizens were detained or deported as aliens. Between 2003 and 2010, more than 20,000 Americans suffered the same fate.

    Do articles on Reason ever cite sources or is that just for professional publications?

  7. Shika’s lies and propaganda are deplorable. Why does Reason keep her on staff?

  8. Shiksa, go back to your shithole country and write bogus articles there.

  9. “”His border lawlessness keeps growing””

    As if you are really concerned about border lawlessness.

Please to post comments