This White House has taken its massive overhaul of the existing asylum system along the border between the U.S. and Mexico to the Supreme Court. It asked the high court to allow the Donald Trump administration to continue to implement its border asylum ban as its case makes its way through the court system.
Representing the federal government before the court U.S. Solicitor General, Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court justices to stay another judge’s ruling on the ban. This summer Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court, which is located in San Francisco, appeared to agree with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit as he approved an injunction against the ban. He wrote in his filing, according to CBS News:
‘An injunction would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.’
In late 2018, Tigar took another proposal about prohibiting refugees who illegally cross the border from any chance at asylum. With two new conservative justices placed on the Supreme Court by Trump, the court voted 5 to 4 to reject the White House’s request to stay Tigar’s ruling.
Earlier, Trump’s attorneys requested the 9th Circuit of Appeals block a new regulation that would prohibit most refugees coming from Central America and other countries from seeking asylum at the U.S.’s southern border. The appellate court refused the administration’s request. However, it limited the injunction to block the asylum ban to the court’s jurisdiction.
That meant the president’s attorneys could not move forward with its near-total asylum ban in California and Arizona. However, they could continue with their case in Texas and New Mexico.
The White House attorneys have been asking the Supreme Court to let it implement its rule along the complete border the U.S. and Mexico. Francisco said:
‘[The policy] serves important public purposes [and] alleviates a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system by prioritizing asylum seekers who most need asylum in the United States.’
The Justice Department (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have been working in tandem to limit non-Mexican refugees seeking asylum. This ruling included those who reached the U.S. border yet did not ask for asylum in the countries they traveled through to get here.
The purpose of the ban was to limit the flood of people fleeing the violence of Central America. However, it also included people from other countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, and central African countries.
Trump’s White House insisted that the new immigrant system would limit “forum shopping.” They meant immigrants seeking asylum in America versus in the countries along their trek.
Francisco wrote:
‘The rule also screens out asylum claims that are less likely to be meritorious by denying asylum to aliens who refused to seek protection in third countries en route to the southern border. In turn, the rule deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States.’
Advocates for immigrants claimed that this government’s systemic changes ignored the U.S. and international refugee laws. The defenders of the refugees said Trump’s changes would force innumerable refugees and others seeking asylum to be turned back to the countries that were persecuting them.
Featured image is a screenshot via YouTube.
The Mueller Report Adventures: In Bite-Sizes on this Facebook page. These quick, two-minute reads interpret the report in normal English for busy people. Mueller Bite-Sizes uncovers what is essentially a compelling spy mystery. Interestingly enough, Mueller Bite-Sizes can be read in any order.
