ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 1 of 6
1 2345 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>Trump-shaped 9th Circuit hands White House major win on asylum policy
scho63 08:13 AM 09-11-2019
The reshaping of the Courts has been widely downplayed and certainly not even spoken by the Left. Trump is KICKING ass on appointing conservative judges. :-)

If Trump wins another 4 years, the Courts is this country will FINALLY be rid of most activist scum who make laws when their job is to rule and enforce the laws as written. (John Roberts you listening?)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/9th...-asylum-policy

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – long a liberal bastion that has been aggressively reshaped into a more moderate court by the Trump administration – handed the president a major win late Monday, lifting a nationwide injunction on his asylum policy.

Earlier in the day, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California had reinstated a nationwide halt on the Trump administration's plan to prevent most migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, if they first crossed through another country on the way.

But in an administrative order first obtained by Politico, the 9th Circuit rolled Tigar's ruling right back, saying that for now it should only apply to the confines of the 9th Circuit — which encompasses California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Guam, Oregon and Washington.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit now has seven Trump-appointed federal judges — more than any other federal appellate bench. The radical transformation of the court, which has 29 seats, is largely the result of Trump's push to nominate conservative judges and bypass traditional consultations with Senate Democrats.

Thirteen of the 29 seats are now occupied by GOP-appointed judges. Last year, that number stood at six.

"Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9th Circuit is no longer liberal," The Washington Post noted earlier this year.

Tigar first blocked the asylum policy in July after a lawsuit by groups that help asylum seekers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then partially limited the impact of Tigar's injunction.

HOW HAS TRUMP REMADE THE ONCE-LIBERAL 9TH CIRCUIT?

That meant the policy was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona but not in New Mexico and Texas.

In his ruling Monday, Tigar circled back, and stressed a "need to maintain uniform immigration policy" and found that nonprofit organizations such as Al Otro Lado don't know where asylum seekers who enter the U.S. will end up living and making their case to remain in the country.

Tiger, citing new evidence, on Monday issued a second nationwide injunction.

Appeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum ruleVideo
"The court recognized there is grave danger facing asylum-seekers along the entire stretch of the southern border," Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

Trump said he disagreed with the judge's ruling, hours before the 9th Circuit backed him up late Tuesday and again limited the injunction.

"I think it's very unfair that he does that," Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for a trip to North Carolina. "I don't think it should be allowed."

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement that a sole judge shouldn't have the ability to exert such a broad impact on immigration policy, and noted the administration's request to the Supreme Court to set aside the injunction is still pending.


"This ruling is a gift to human smugglers and traffickers and undermines the rule of law," she said.

The courts have halted some of Trump's key policy shifts on immigration, including an earlier version of an asylum ban. The president has prevailed on several fronts after initial legal setbacks, for example, when the Supreme Court recently lifted a freeze on using Pentagon money to build border walls.

The rules issued by the Trump administration in July apply to most migrants who pass through another country before reaching the United States. They target tens of thousands of Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty who cross Mexico each month to seek asylum and would affect asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reversed decades of U.S. policy in what Trump administration officials said was an attempt to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

Mexico deserves credit but needs to sustain efforts on the border, former ICE acting director says
Former acting director of ICE Ronald D. Vitiello reacts to the latest border apprehension numbers.

U.S. law allows refugees to request asylum when they get to the U.S. regardless of how they arrive or cross. The crucial exception is for those who have come through a country considered to be "safe," but the law is vague on how a country is determined to be safe. It says pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.

People are generally eligible for asylum in the U.S. if they credibly fear return to their home country because they would be persecuted based on race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group.

The vast majority of asylum claims are denied, however, and the administration has said the system is being abused as a means of economic and humanitarian relief when it was intended to be used for limited and extraordinary cases.

Asylum claims have spiked since 2010, and there is currently a backlog of more than 800,000 cases pending in immigration court. Most asylum claims often fail to meet this high legal standard after they are reviewed by asylum judges, and only about 20 percent of applicants are approved.

The Border Patrol apprehended about 50,000 people at the southern border in August, a 30 percent drop in arrests from July amid summer heat and an aggressive crackdown on both sides of the border to deter migrants.

The drop was more significant than it was during the same period last year, however, in what officials called a clear sign that its recent agreement with Mexico to curb illegal immigration was working.

The 64,006 migrants apprehended or deemed inadmissible represents a 22 percent drop from July, when 82,055 were apprehended, and a 56 percent drop from the peak of the crisis in May, when more than 144,000 migrants were caught or deemed inadmissible. While the numbers typically drop in the summer, the plummet is steeper than typical seasonal declines.

Meanwhile, the number of caravans has also dropped. In May, 48 caravans of migrants were recorded coming to the U.S. In August, the tally was six. Border Patrol now has fewer than 5,000 migrants in custody, down from 19,000 at the peak in the spring.

“That international effort is making an impact. Mexican operational interdiction is certainly [the] highlight of that effort, but the shared responsibility we’re seeing in the region, governments stepping up and saying we also own this,” Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Fox News on Monday.

A senior administration official also said, "the tariff threat with Mexico changed the dynamic significantly with our partners."

Fox News' Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
[Reply]
Donger 08:20 AM 09-11-2019
U.S. law allows refugees to request asylum when they get to the U.S. regardless of how they arrive or cross.

This law needs to be changed. And we should also stop offering asylum at the border. It should only be offered at our embassies and consulates.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 08:35 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
U.S. law allows refugees to request asylum when they get to the U.S. regardless of how they arrive or cross.

This law needs to be changed. And we should also stop offering asylum at the border. It should only be offered at our embassies and consulates.
Yeah, screw that international law. I'm sure allowing refugees to claim asylum once they get into a 'safe country' were based on unicorn farts and not actual real world negative consequences for refugees who couldn't get into a 'safe country.'
[Reply]
IowaHawkeyeChief 08:39 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yeah, screw that international law. I'm sure allowing refugees to claim asylum once they get into a 'safe country' were based on unicorn farts and not actual real world negative consequences for refugees who couldn't get into a 'safe country.'
What's safe? Is Mexico safe?
[Reply]
Donger 08:40 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yeah, screw that international law. I'm sure allowing refugees to claim asylum once they get into a 'safe country' were based on unicorn farts and not actual real world negative consequences for refugees who couldn't get into a 'safe country.'
Yes, screw it. If they can transit Mexico in order to get here, they can make their way to our embassy to apply.
[Reply]
LOCOChief 08:40 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yeah, screw that international law. I'm sure allowing refugees to claim asylum once they get into a 'safe country' were based on unicorn farts and not actual real world negative consequences for refugees who couldn't get into a 'safe country.'
:-) International law :-):-):-):-):-)
[Reply]
Loneiguana 09:01 AM 09-11-2019
You guys do know the facade conservatives attempt to play that you don't hate them because Hispanic but because "broke the law" starts to crumble when you express you angry at them following the law and that you want to change the law to stop them from coming here.
[Reply]
Donger 09:07 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
You guys do know the facade conservatives attempt to play that you don't hate them because Hispanic but because "broke the law" starts to crumble when you express you angry at them following the law and that you want to change the law to stop them from coming here.
Reduced to that already? My, my...

Anyway, this is a problem, agreed?

Asylum claims have spiked since 2010, and there is currently a backlog of more than 800,000 cases pending in immigration court. Most asylum claims often fail to meet this high legal standard after they are reviewed by asylum judges, and only about 20 percent of applicants are approved.
[Reply]
Pennywise 09:08 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
You guys do know the facade conservatives attempt to play that you don't hate them because Hispanic but because "broke the law" starts to crumble when you express you angry at them following the law and that you want to change the law to stop them from coming here.

[Reply]
Loneiguana 09:20 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Reduced to that already? My, my...

Anyway, this is a problem, agreed?

Asylum claims have spiked since 2010, and there is currently a backlog of more than 800,000 cases pending in immigration court. Most asylum claims often fail to meet this high legal standard after they are reviewed by asylum judges, and only about 20 percent of applicants are approved.
Up there with all the other problems facing our overworked and hardly staffed legal system, from defense attorneys to rape cases to immigration court. Sounds like the lack funding and all that that a lot of the courts have to deal with.

Now, what does this have the justification that conservatives dislike Hispanics because of "laws" being undermined, but conservatives wanting to change the law just because Hispanics?

Also, your data is wrong. Latest year of data has it 28 percent approval. Of course, as one would expect, this has dropped since Trump became president. 5 years before that number, denial rate was below 50 percent. But, I'm sure you'll ignore that like context.
[Reply]
Donger 09:25 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Up there with all the other problems facing our overworked and hardly staffed legal system, from defense attorneys to rape cases to immigration court. Sounds like the lack funding and all that that a lot of the courts have to deal with.

Now, what does this have the justification that conservatives dislike Hispanics because of "laws" being undermined, but conservatives wanting to change the law just because Hispanics?

Also, your data is wrong. Latest year of data has it 28 percent approval. Of course, as one would expect, this has dropped since Trump became president. 5 years before that number, denial rate was below 50 percent. But, I'm sure you'll ignore that like context.
Oh, so we should just spend more money on these people. Good luck with that.

I wouldn't think any differently about this or have a different position if these people where White Canadians, or any other group.

It's not my data. And I'm ignoring nothing. I'm glad the approval rate is dropping. I'd like to get it to 0%
[Reply]
Loneiguana 09:39 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Oh, so we should just spend more money on these people. Good luck with that.
I would say we have a constitutional duty to ensure the court system is staffed and funded well enough to give people a fair and timely trial, no matter who they are.

Shame, you think ensuring the courts are efficient and effective for "those people" is a bad thing. I wonder why that is? I'm sure this type of comment will completely jive with the rest of your post....

Originally Posted by Donger:
I wouldn't think any differently about this or have a different position if these people where White Canadians, or any other group.
:-)

Originally Posted by Donger:
It's not my data. And I'm ignoring nothing. I'm glad the approval rate is dropping. I'd like to get it to 0%
Since you stated it, uncited, it is your data there chump.

And hoping a court system denies all asylum claims isn't wishing for justice or the truth about why they are seeking asylum. Its just straight up admitting you don't want certain people in your country... people who have followed the law.... which goes back to my first point. Thanks for the help.
[Reply]
Donger 09:44 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
I would say we have a constitutional duty to ensure the court system is staffed and funded well enough to give people a fair and timely trial, no matter who they are.

Shame, you think ensuring the courts are efficient and effective for "those people" is a bad thing. I wonder why that is? I'm sure this type of comment will completely jive with the rest of your post....
You don't need to wonder. I see no reason to spend more money on these people when they could apply at our embassies or consulates.

Just to be clear, you are asserting that I hold these positions because they are Hispanic. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Since you stated it, uncited, it is your data there chump.

And hoping a court system denies all asylum claims isn't wishing for justice or the truth about why they are seeking asylum. Its just straight up admitting you don't want certain people in your country... people who have followed the law.... which goes back to my first point. Thanks for the help.
It's from the OP. Didn't you realize that?

Yes, I don't want asylum-seekers who apply for it at our borders. Any of our borders. Go to one of our embassies or consulates. You acknowledge that is an option, yes? And one of considerably less distance and expense. Right?
[Reply]
patteeu 09:49 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Up there with all the other problems facing our overworked and hardly staffed legal system, from defense attorneys to rape cases to immigration court. Sounds like the lack funding and all that that a lot of the courts have to deal with.

Now, what does this have the justification that conservatives dislike Hispanics because of "laws" being undermined, but conservatives wanting to change the law just because Hispanics?

Also, your data is wrong. Latest year of data has it 28 percent approval. Of course, as one would expect, this has dropped since Trump became president. 5 years before that number, denial rate was below 50 percent. But, I'm sure you'll ignore that like context.
Conservatives, as a group, don’t hate Hispanics. We do generally hate open borders and sham asylum cases designed to overwhelm a system that was designed to handle good faith requests, not high volume fraud.
[Reply]
lawrenceRaider 09:53 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
You don't need to wonder. I see no reason to spend more money on these people when they could apply at our embassies or consulates.

Just to be clear, you are asserting that I hold these positions because they are Hispanic. Is that correct?



It's from the OP. Didn't you realize that?

Yes, I don't want asylum-seekers who apply for it at our borders. Any of our borders. Go to one of our embassies or consulates. You acknowledge that is an option, yes? And one of considerably less distance and expense. Right?
No too mention much less danger to the children. Why won't Democrats think of the poor children being forced across dangerous landscapes?
[Reply]
Page 1 of 6
1 2345 > Last »
Up