ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 2 of 6
< 12 3456 >
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 09:56 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
No too mention much less danger to the children. Why won't Democrats think of the poor children being forced across dangerous landscapes?
That's true. I can only presume that they only care about little White children.
[Reply]
Merde Furieux 10:01 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Why won't Democrats think of the poor children being forced across dangerous landscapes?
Demonic Rats don't care about children.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...parks_protests
[Reply]
Loneiguana 10:30 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?
Your letting your emotion on this issue get the better of you again. Whether they apply at a embassy or apply when reaching and entering the United States, they will still have to go through the immigration court to see if their asylum claim is legitimate.

So what does this statement have to do with your instance that we shouldn't ensure the court system is staffed and funded so cases are tried in a speedy and effective manner for "those people"?

And your right, I don't wonder why you don't think "those people" should have a fair and timely day in court anymore than I wonder why you want to change international law.

Originally Posted by Donger:
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?
Yes, I know what you want. That's been my point. The entire facade of being against Hispanic immigrants is because "breaking the law". That's undercut by conservatives instance to change the law because Hispanic. Again, thanks for your help in illustrating your views on "those people" who follow the law.
[Reply]
Donger 10:34 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Your letting your emotion on this issue get the better of you again. Whether they apply at a embassy or apply when reaching and entering the United States, they will still have to go through the immigration court to see if their asylum claim is legitimate.

So what does this statement have to do with your instance that we shouldn't ensure the court system is staffed and funded so cases are tried in a speedy and effective manner for "those people"?

And your right, I don't wonder why you don't think "those people" should have a fair and timely day in court anymore than I wonder why you want to change international law.
And how did you reach the conclusion that my position is based on ethnicity?

Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yes, I know what you want. That's been my point. The entire facade of being against Hispanic immigrants is because "breaking the law". That's undercut by conservatives instance to change the law because Hispanic. Again, thanks for your help in illustrating your views on "those people" who follow the law.
I haven't illustrated that at all. Speaking of emotion, you're just making it up because that's easier for you rather than actually arguing against my actual position.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 10:36 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
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.
Yes, I know what you try to tell yourselves and others. I know the "justification".

That's completely undercut when conservatives then also try to change what is international law because Hispanic. The "change" really doesn't address whether a person has a legitimate claim to asylum by denying those who went through another country first. In fact, its the exact opposite of determining legitimize by preventing any investigation into said legitimize in the first place.
[Reply]
Donger 09-11-2019, 10:38 AM
This message has been deleted by Donger.
Loneiguana 10:45 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
And how did you reach the conclusion that my position is based on ethnicity?


I haven't illustrated that at all. Speaking of emotion, you're just making it up because that's easier for you rather than actually arguing against my actual position.
You've done plenty to illustrate it. From referring to them to those people who you think courts shouldn't follow the constitutional mandate of speedy and efficient trials, to your continued instance to change what is international law because "reason". There hasn't be an actual justified reason given to why conservatives are so suddenly against Hispanics seeking asylum.

Also, :-) at your claim I'm not arguing your positions. Okay babble lee. Let's check the record:

You: "this backlog of court cases is a problem, right"
Me: "Sure, the same problem a lot courts in this country have with funding and staffing"
You: Ignore that "so we should just spend more money on these people."
Me: "Well, that is what the constitution kind of instructs us to do with the court system"
You: Ignore that. "They should apply at an embassy"
Me: "Um.. they would still have to go through the court system, that doesn't solve the problem you were just bitching about"
You: Ignore that
Me: :-)

What is obviously plain to see is you making statements that I correct, you ignore them, and try some other "justification" for why "those people" shouldn't be allowed to follow international law when applying for asylum in the United States.
[Reply]
Donger 10:51 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
You've done plenty to illustrate it. From referring to them to those people who you think courts shouldn't follow the constitutional mandate of speedy and efficient trials, to your continued instance to change what is international law because "reason". There hasn't be an actual justified reason given to why conservatives are so suddenly against Hispanics seeking asylum.

Also, :-) at your claim I'm not arguing your positions. Okay babble lee. Let's check the record:

You: "this backlog of court cases is a problem, right"
Me: "Sure, the same problem a lot courts in this country have with funding and staffing"
You: Ignore that "so we should just spend more money on these people."
Me: "Well, that is what the constitution kind of instructs us to do with the court system"
You: Ignore that. "They should apply at an embassy"
Me: "Um.. they would still have to go through the court system, that doesn't solve the problem you were just bitching about"
You: Ignore that
Me: :-)

What is obviously plain to see is you making statements that I correct, you ignore them, and try some other "justification" for why "those people" shouldn't be allowed to follow international law when applying for asylum in the United States.
No, I haven't. My disdain for our practice of allowing asylum application on our border or, worse, even if they are inside our country illegally, isn't limited to Hispanics. You just want it to be because you don't have anything else.

Unlike you, I take assertions of "racism" quite seriously. You really should be able to back up such claims if you make them, and what you did above is not an example of that.
[Reply]
patteeu 10:59 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Yes, I know what you try to tell yourselves and others. I know the "justification".

That's completely undercut when conservatives then also try to change what is international law because Hispanic. The "change" really doesn't address whether a person has a legitimate claim to asylum by denying those who went through another country first. In fact, its the exact opposite of determining legitimize by preventing any investigation into said legitimize in the first place.
No one does this.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:12 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
No, I haven't. My disdain for our practice of allowing asylum application on our border or, worse, even if they are inside our country illegally, isn't limited to Hispanics. You just want it to be because you don't have anything else.

Unlike you, I take assertions of "racism" quite seriously. You really should be able to back up such claims if you make them, and what you did above is not an example of that.
Your own words speak for themselves there buddy. Don't cry to me that you complained about people following the law coming here (without offering any actual reason why), not wanting "those people" to have a efficient and fair trial, and offer non solutions (claim at an embassy) to a "problem" (number of immigration cases), all while ignoring my counter arguments.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:17 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
No one does this.
Its very similar to homosexual marriage with conservatives.

Before Homosexuals were allowed to legal marry, conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the government institute of marriage. But, as that started to change, you saw conservatives shift to "Well, then it just should just get government out of the marriage business." Why the change. Because Homosexual.

Similarly, For decades, conservatives haven't really had a problem with how international asylum law applies to the US. But as soon as Trump started his "fear the immigrant" campaign for votes, suddenly conservatives have an issue with it.

Issue with what, exactly? Well, apparently a lot Hispanics are claiming asylum (As Donger pointed out). So, as it stands, conservatives want to change how the US follows international law because Hispanic.
[Reply]
Donger 11:17 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Your own words speak for themselves there buddy. Don't cry to me that you complained about people following the law coming here (without offering any actual reason why), not wanting "those people" to have a efficient and fair trial, and offer non solutions (claim at an embassy) to a "problem" (number of immigration cases), all while ignoring my counter arguments.
Yes they do. And they support my position, not yours. As you know, "these people" refers to those 800,000 asylum seekers who have overwhelmed our system. I couldn't care less what their ethnicity is or isn't.
[Reply]
Donger 11:19 AM 09-11-2019
I wonder who first brought up ethnicity or Hispanic in this thread. Anyone want to guess?
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:22 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes they do. And they support my position, not yours. As you know, "these people" refers to those 800,000 asylum seekers who have overwhelmed our system. I couldn't care less what their ethnicity is or isn't.
:-)

Yes 'they' do what? 'Who' supports your position? What does any of that have to do with my post? Stop being inane.

And you must think everyone is as stupid as conservatives if you think anyone is going to buy that "Not just Hispanics" as Trump and conservatives completely and utterly focus Hispanics. Let me know when Trump tries the scare mongering over an Canadian caravan.

Its going to be fun watching you run away from your rhetoric all day after you realized what your were saying. LOL
[Reply]
patteeu 11:23 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Its very similar to homosexual marriage with conservatives.

Before Homosexuals were allowed to legal marry, conservatives didn't seem to have a problem with the government institute of marriage. But, as that started to change, you saw conservatives shift to "Well, then it just should just get government out of the marriage business." Why the change. Because Homosexual.

Similarly, For decades, conservatives haven't really had a problem with how international asylum law applies to the US. But as soon as Trump started his "fear the immigrant" campaign for votes, suddenly conservatives have an issue with it.

Issue with what, exactly? Well, apparently a lot Hispanics are claiming asylum (As Donger pointed out). So, as it stands, conservatives want to change how the US follows international law because Hispanic.
Conservatives weren't the ones trying to change marriage laws.
[Reply]
Donger 11:25 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
:-)

Yes 'they' do what? 'Who' supports your position? What does any of that have to do with my post? Stop being inane.

And you must think everyone is as stupid as conservatives if you think anyone is going to buy that "Not just Hispanics" as Trump and conservatives completely and utterly focus Hispanics. Let me know when Trump tries the scare mongering over an Canadian caravan.

Its going to be fun watching you run away from your rhetoric all day after you realized what your were saying. LOL
My words speak for themselves. Unfortunately for you, they don't support your assertion at all.

What Trump and other conservatives do isn't relevant to your accusation against me in this thread.
[Reply]
Page 2 of 6
< 12 3456 >
Up