View Full Version : Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to enforce asylum crackdown
dmaxfireman
12-21-18, 14:53
Rough week..... rough way to end the year.
The decision leaves in place lower-court rulings that blocked the administration from automatically denying asylum to people who do not go through official border crossings. An open-ended nationwide injunction on enforcement issued by a San Francisco-based federal judge this week prompted the Justice Department to seek immediate relief from the Supreme Court.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-enforce-asylum-crackdown
Go figure. The president isn't an emperor and can't violate the law. Who would have thunk it...
Piece of shit Roberts was the deciding vote. F*****g prick traitor. Why is it that supposedly "conservative" justices will flip but you never see it the other way around.
Of course you know that EVERY friggin' illegal will claim "asylum" from here on out. No reason not to.
The administration is, however, making them stay in Mexico until their cases are adjudicated. No more "catch and release". Wonder how long before some libtard judge rules they have to be let in while awaiting their case's outcome.
I ask again, as I did in an earlier thread: what the hell is wrong with this country? God, it sickens and infuriates me.
Piece of shit Roberts was the deciding vote. F*****g prick traitor. Why is it that supposedly "conservative" justices will flip but you never see it the other way around.
Of course you know that EVERY friggin' illegal will claim "asylum" from here on out. No reason not to.
The administration is, however, making them stay in Mexico until their cases are adjudicated. No more "catch and release". Wonder how long before some libtard judge rules they have to be let in while awaiting their case's outcome.
I ask again, as I did in an earlier thread: what the hell is wrong with this country? God, it sickens and infuriates me.
Judges are supposed to follow the law. Not bow to political pressure. It isn't about him being conservative or not. It is about what the law says. Don't like it, get it changed. But remember this also involved a couple of international treaties that we are signatories of.
I agree with the issue of a lot of people applying for asylum when they don't have any reason too. But that doesn't change how it is set up right now.
Judges are supposed to follow the law. Not bow to political pressure. It isn't about him being conservative or not. It is about what the law says. Don't like it, get it changed? But remember this also involved a couple of international treaties that we are signatories of.
I agree with the issue of a lot of people applying for asylum when they don't have any reason too. But that doesn't change how it is set up right now.
Only question is (having not read the actual law verbatim) does something in the law specifically enumerate that being caught anywhere you can claim asylum? In other words while you can say Trump is reaching for straws, is there anything in the law itself that forbids limiting asylum claims to ports-of-entry only?
Let's say the law says that you can claim asylum to get in here. Is there anything specifically forbidding doing it only at ports-of-entry? Does the lack of it saying that mean you can't require it? Logic would dictate that asylum is a legal process/claim. Being allowed to arbitrarily claim it after being caught ILLEGALLY entering the country seems to run contrary to the whole "law" thing doesn't it?
Only question is (having not read the actual law verbatim) does something in the law specifically enumerate that being caught anywhere you can claim asylum? In other words while you can say Trump is reaching for straws, is there anything in the law itself that forbids limiting asylum claims to ports-of-entry only?
Let's say the law says that you can claim asylum to get in here. Is there anything specifically forbidding doing it only at ports-of-entry? Does the lack of it saying that mean you can't require it? Logic would dictate that asylum is a legal process/claim. Being allowed to arbitrarily claim it after being caught ILLEGALLY entering the country seems to run contrary to the whole "law" thing doesn't it?
You must claim asylum status within one year of entering the united states. Your type of entry, legal or otherwise doesn't matter.
In fact one of the big issues has been that Trump made it pretty much impossible for people to apply at the normal points of entry.
This is different from refugee status also. A lot of people get them confused but they are not the same. I have a good friend who is an asylum seeker from Iran. Shay has been here for a number of years and is still going through the process. If he was sent back he would be killed. That is kind of the whole point of Asylum. These people are sometimes in danger if they are returned to their home country, that is why doing is a violation of both US and international law.
Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:
Race
Religion
Nationality
Membership in a particular social group
Political opinion
If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.
You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-21-18, 19:09
Go figure. The president isn't an emperor and can't violate the law. Who would have thunk it...
Funny. So Trump can't break the law, but these people can break the law - twice. Once by coming across the border illegally, and then falsifying their claims for asylum.
Sure, let's dole out the red carpet and citizenship to people with two strikes against them....
And if I hear one more claim of refugee or asylum with some kind of plan at regime change and general ass-kicking at industrial scale, I'm going to lose it. Either these are shit holes that need to drained kinetically or they aren't. If we are going to grant asylum and refugee status for these people, we had better have a plan for changing the countries that they are coming from. Hell, take the guys from A-stan and Syria and have them kick some ass on the way back.
Not one mention of going after the countries that are carpet bombing us with their people. Put those regimes on a short leash and start military training for all men and women between 18-45.
Funny. So Trump can't break the law, but these people can break the law - twice. Once by coming across the border illegally, and then falsifying their claims for asylum.
Sure, let's dole out the red carpet and citizenship to people with two strikes against them....
And if I hear one more claim of refugee or asylum with some kind of plan at regime change and general ass-kicking at industrial scale, I'm going to lose it. Either these are shit holes that need to drained kinetically or they aren't. If we are going to grant asylum and refugee status for these people, we had better have a plan for changing the countries that they are coming from. Hell, take the guys from A-stan and Syria and have them kick some ass on the way back.
Not one mention of going after the countries that are carpet bombing us with their people. Put those regimes on a short leash and start military training for all men and women between 18-45.
No, but we'll send those shitholes $10 BILLION to *supposedly* make them not shitholes. Yet we can't pony up half that for the start of a wall?
You must claim asylum status within one year of entering the united states. Your type of entry, legal or otherwise doesn't matter.
In fact one of the big issues has been that Trump made it pretty much impossible for people to apply at the normal points of entry.
This is different from refugee status also. A lot of people get them confused but they are not the same. I have a good friend who is an asylum seeker from Iran. Shay has been here for a number of years and is still going through the process. If he was sent back he would be killed. That is kind of the whole point of Asylum. These people are sometimes in danger if they are returned to their home country, that is why doing is a violation of both US and international law.
And THAT situation you describe is exactly the kind of situation asylum is for. However, it is NOT for "My country is a shithole and life there sucks". Too bad so sad. Yet these leeches will lie like a rug about some purported threat they face, but we know that probably 95+% of that is bullshit.
One question I have is can ILLEGAL aliens get welfare/food stamps legally. Not do they, but can they. If you aren't a U.S. citizen you shouldn't get a dime of taxpayer money. Hungry? Go back home and have some tortillas con aroz.
And THAT situation you describe is exactly the kind of situation asylum is for. However, it is NOT for "My country is a shithole and life there sucks". Too bad so sad. Yet these leeches will lie like a rug about some purported threat they face, but we know that probably 95+% of that is bullshit.
Don't know which is which until you process them.
One question I have is can ILLEGAL aliens get welfare/food stamps legally. Not do they, but can they. If you aren't a U.S. citizen you shouldn't get a dime of taxpayer money. Hungry? Go back home and have some tortillas con aroz.
No they can't. Some non citizens can apply but the requirements are strict and they have to be here legally.
Don't know which is which until you process them.
Now the gray area comes in as to the "circumstances" of their wait.....are they made to stay in Mexico (for example) or brought in and then "catch-and-released"? I say they stay in a non-U.S. location while the case is adjudicated, that way they don't disappear into the interior. Some libtard judge can rule about their detention (length and conditions) here but can the end-result of their decision ultimately be that the illegals are released? Obviously it is, but that this judge is eventually going to release illegal individuals seems to be a bit of an oxy-moron, no?
Also, do the asylum laws specifically describe the length of time held or "conditions"? I'll bet they don't. Then those decisions would not in fact be based on the law itself but instead the personal whim of some activist judge. Easily ignored by a POTUS.
I'll bet (again, not having read it) that the asylum law doesn't specify as detention location or length of stay. Some judge is arbitrarily determining what is "fair/humane/nice/Waaaa!!!" and his edict makes it law? Nah, also should be easily ignored by a POTUS as long as it is not specifically written as part of the law. I would say that obviously as long as humane treatment was taking place---food, basic medical care, shelter, that's about it and bare minimum at that---then some judge shouldn't have shit to say about it.
My computer has this thing, it's called google, I just typed in 'asylum laws' and, wow! it's like the Encyclopedia Britannica. :shout:
My computer has this thing, it's called google, I just typed in 'asylum laws' and, wow! it's like the Encyclopedia Britannica. :shout:
This is what really bothers me. People claiming this is a bad ruling or that Roberts is a traitor, yet they don't even know the law in question. It shows that people don' t care what the law is. They just want the SCOTUS to rule the way they want.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-18, 01:05
This is what really bothers me. People claiming this is a bad ruling or that Roberts is a traitor, yet they don't even know the law in question. It shows that people don' t care what the law is. They just want the SCOTUS to rule the way they want.
People cross the border illegally. They then game the system for their own personal gain through making false statements.
You can't break into a house and if you get caught, claim you were looking for charity.
The 'law' didn't stop all those 9th and HI judges from BS rulings that tied things up for months.
I really wish that judges were an independent body that ruled on laws, not made up laws. Unfortunately, that ended about 40 years ago. That their side never, ever seems to find their inner constitutionalist and do their jobs, F them.
To me the straw that broke the camel's back was Prop 8 BS. From wikipedia
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on the appeal in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that proponents of initiatives such as Proposition 8 did not possess legal standing in their own right to defend the resulting law in federal court, either to the Supreme Court or (previously) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The decision left the district court's 2010 ruling intact.[9][10][11] On June 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit, on remand, dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved their previous stay of the district court's ruling, enabling Governor Jerry Brown to order same-sex marriages to resume.[12]
When the courts ruled that the people the WROTE the Prop 8 didn't have standing in court. 'Standing' was used a lot in the 90s and 2000s to stop court cases started by the right. Everyone forgets that gay marriage didn't even pass in CA, and had to be rammed down people's throats by the courts.
This is where we are today. SCOTUS decisions have nothing to do with the law. This latest one is just Roberts pulling a Comey and trying to 'fix' something that they broke, and just making things worse in the end.
My computer has this thing, it's called google, I just typed in 'asylum laws' and, wow! it's like the Encyclopedia Britannica. :shout:
Okay Einstein, I actually looked at the text of the law. The port-of-entry thing is specifically mentioned as not being necessary, so that won't hold up.
HOWEVER.....
They can be detained for 180 days (yep, 6 freaking months) and the conditions thereof are not specified (obviously assuming humane treatment, but not extravagant living). Certainly the POTUS can order extra judges to adjudicate these in fast-food style, all while keeping them locked up in humane but bare-bones conditions. The kids right with them, 'cause we wouldn't want to split up families you know. Tents, MRE's, shower facilities, basic medical care, no internet, no entertainment provided (if they wanna kick a soccer ball around have at it).
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-22-18, 12:35
We need to take the people that make frivolous claims and ban them and their families from the immigration system. Then we need to go after the lawyers and the firms pushing the strategy of frivolous claims and disbar and go after them for conspiracy against the US- which seems to be the charge du jour lately.
We have to put a negative into these tactics that the left uses. There is no downside to them trying to destroy the US by using the inherent systems in the US. That is no different than the terrorists using our planes as missiles , our chemical plants as bombs and our connected systems as daisy chain devices.
Okay Einstein
That is all I read, and I assume you mean that in the most positive way.
They can be detained for 180 days (yep, 6 freaking months) and the conditions thereof are not specified (obviously assuming humane treatment, but not extravagant living). Certainly the POTUS can order extra judges to adjudicate these in fast-food style, all while keeping them locked up in humane but bare-bones conditions. The kids right with them, 'cause we wouldn't want to split up families you know. Tents, MRE's, shower facilities, basic medical care, no internet, no entertainment provided (if they wanna kick a soccer ball around have at it).
I tend to agree. I believe Fort Chaffee is still sitting empty.
I tend to agree. I believe Fort Chaffee is still sitting empty.
Of course it was meant positively. ;)
Isn't Chafee where they sent the Cubans from the Muriel Boatlift?
Judges are supposed to follow the law. Not bow to political pressure. It isn't about him being conservative or not. It is about what the law says. Don't like it, get it changed. But remember this also involved a couple of international treaties that we are signatories of....................................................................................
Bull**** The progressives always vote as a political block, always have, always will.
Sell your swill to someone else.
Of course it was meant positively. ;)
Isn't Chafee where they sent the Cubans from the Muriel Boatlift?
Yes it was, I believe they may have also shipped some up to Fort McCoy. The last time I was past Chaffee, about 10 years ago, it looked pretty desolate. I taught PLDC down there for a couple of extended AT's when I was in the reserves. Wasn't much there at that time either.
Judges are supposed to follow the law. Not bow to political pressure. It isn't about him being conservative or not. It is about what the law says. Don't like it, get it changed. But remember this also involved a couple of international treaties that we are signatories of....................................................................................
Bull**** The progressives always vote as a political block, always have, always will.
Sell your swill to someone else.
So you are saying you don't care about the law and just want them to rule the way you feel?
So you are saying you don't care about the law and just want them to rule the way you feel?
Not speaking for the guy who you replied to, but in all fairness the asylum law was no doubt passed as being intended for people like your friend from Iran, or some dissident from China, etc. I'll wager it was NOT intended for "I'm a broke-dick poor-ass with four kids and my country is a Third-World shithole and it sucks living there." Now the law as written can be morphed into encompassing that, but even if it is taken verbatim it doesn't guarantee entry here. You apparently are guaranteed an adjudication of your case (which I find odd as they aren't citizens and we don't owe them jack shit) but it does not stipulate where you would be held and under what conditions.
They aren't really concerned with "asylum". They know their chances are slim with the "My country is a shithole" argument. What they want, and are seeking, is a foot in the door so they can DISAPPEAR into the interior. To hold them in a controlled environment until they are eventually told to go home (95% of them anyway) is what we should be demanding as there is nothing to prevent it in the asylum law. That judge that ruled a year or more ago that two weeks was the limit should be told to pound sand. As far as the kids go, I agree they should all be kept together.....at a detention facility until they are all told to go back. As long as the basic conditions are met (three hots ---or an MRE---and a cot, with shelter) then quite frankly some judge shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it. Now we all know a few will, but someone with some balls would flip the bird and ignore that partisan edict.
Not speaking for the guy who you replied to, but in all fairness the asylum law was no doubt passed as being intended for people like your friend from Iran, or some dissident from China, etc. I'll wager it was NOT intended for "I'm a broke-dick poor-ass with four kids and my country is a Third-World shithole and it sucks living there." Now the law as written can be morphed into encompassing that, but even if it is taken verbatim it doesn't guarantee entry here. You apparently are guaranteed an adjudication of your case (which I find odd as they aren't citizens and we don't owe them jack shit) but it does not stipulate where you would be held and under what conditions.
They aren't really concerned with "asylum". They know their chances are slim with the "My country is a shithole" argument. What they want, and are seeking, is a foot in the door so they can DISAPPEAR into the interior. To hold them in a controlled environment until they are eventually told to go home (95% of them anyway) is what we should be demanding as there is nothing to prevent it in the asylum law. That judge that ruled a year or more ago that two weeks was the limit should be told to pound sand. As far as the kids go, I agree they should all be kept together.....at a detention facility until they are all told to go back. As long as the basic conditions are met (three hots ---or an MRE---and a cot, with shelter) then quite frankly some judge shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it. Now we all know a few will, but someone with some balls would flip the bird and ignore that partisan edict.
Great theory. But that isn't how it works out. These people are watched and monitored.
It goes along with why people say the wall is stupid. Most people in the country here illegally don't come through using such convoluted methods or sneaking across the boarder in the dead of night. They come here legally and then stay past when they are allowed too.
Both sides of the debate need to step back and actually look at the facts involved. Because neither side has a real good handle on them.
It goes along with why people say the wall is stupid. Most people in the country here illegally don't come through using such convoluted methods or sneaking across the boarder in the dead of night. They come here legally and then stay past when they are allowed too.
Big problem is no agrees as to how large is the illegal population.
This site backs up what you posted with some current numbers:
https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2018/aug/24/kevin-mccarthy/mostly-true-visa-overstays-account-half-all-people/
Quote Originally Posted by lowprone View Post
Judges are supposed to follow the law. Not bow to political pressure. It isn't about him being conservative or not. It is about what the law says. Don't like it, get it changed. But remember this also involved a couple of international treaties that we are signatories of....................................................................................
Bull**** The progressives always vote as a political block, always have, always will.
Sell your swill to someone else.
So you are saying you don't care about the law and just want them to rule the way you feel?********************************************************
When your progressive judicial bloc votes according to the " LAW" instead of how the DNC regards it please get back with me.
Great theory. But that isn't how it works out. These people are watched and monitored.
It goes along with why people say the wall is stupid. Most people in the country here illegally don't come through using such convoluted methods or sneaking across the boarder in the dead of night. They come here legally and then stay past when they are allowed too.
Both sides of the debate need to step back and actually look at the facts involved. Because neither side has a real good handle on them.
Are you talking about the ones released into the interior (a la the "catch and release" policy)? They sure as hell aren't monitored. They don't show up for their hearing dates. They "melt away". That needs to stop.
And I'll agree that the overstayed visas need to be rounded up and deported too. Absolutely.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.