ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
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]
Hoopsdoc 11:44 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
I don't wonder about it at all.

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...00&postcount=7

YOU brought up Hispanics in this thread.
Lone? Race baiting because he has no semblance of an argument whatsoever?

Nah. Couldn’t be.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:44 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Actually, no. Thank you for proving yourself wrong again. As you can see from that post, by "those people" I meant and mean asylum-seekers.
Which brings me back to my original point. Conservatives don't like those 'immigrants' because they break the law, but here you are outright saying you don't want them, "immigrants", here even if they follow the law. That undercuts the "don't want them here because they break the law" excuse conservatives give to be anti-immigrant.

You really don't have to keep reinforcing my point. You've made it clear enough. But thanks though.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:46 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
I don't wonder about it at all.

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...00&postcount=7

YOU brought up Hispanics in this thread.
How stupid are you going to go today? Apparently so stupid that when the Administration and the article specifically says "Central Americans" and "Mexico", and "southern border", you wonder what that has to do with Hispanics.

Carry on Trump, you tried to make a point, failed, but that doesn't mean you'll let it go, eh?

/Why are you commenting on who the article and the administration is talking about?:-):-):-):-):-)
[Reply]
patteeu 11:47 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Lone is doing a great impression of a pinata in this thread.
Unfortunately, he's the kind of pinata that holds nothing but hot air.
[Reply]
Donger 11:47 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Which brings me back to my original point. Conservatives don't like those 'immigrants' because they break the law, but here you are outright saying you don't want them, "immigrants", here even if they follow the law. That undercuts the "don't want them here because they break the law" excuse conservatives give to be anti-immigrant.

You really don't have to keep reinforcing my point. You've made it clear enough. But thanks though.
I'm not going to speak for all conservatives, but I would imagine that they don't like asylum-seekers because the majority of them are rejected, which is a waste of American time and money.

And yes, I have made my point crystal clear. Thanks for offering me the opportunity to beat you again.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:48 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Hoopsdoc:
Lone? Race baiting because he has no semblance of an argument whatsoever?

Nah. Couldn’t be.
Donger made my point very clear.

He destroyed the conservative argument that they don't like immigrants who "break the law" to get here when he outright stated he doesn't want them here even if they follow the law.
[Reply]
Donger 11:48 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Which brings me back to my original point. Conservatives don't like those 'immigrants' because they break the law, but here you are outright saying you don't want them, "immigrants", here even if they follow the law. That undercuts the "don't want them here because they break the law" excuse conservatives give to be anti-immigrant.

You really don't have to keep reinforcing my point. You've made it clear enough. But thanks though.
You've been reduced to copying and pasting your own fatally-flawed "argument." Excellent. My work is done here.
[Reply]
Donger 11:50 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Unfortunately, he's the kind of pinata that holds nothing but hot air.
Yes, that does make it less fun. It would be better if there were Mexican jumping beans. Or candy. Or something.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:50 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
I'm not going to speak for all conservatives, but I would imagine that they don't like asylum-seekers because the majority of them are rejected, which is a waste of American time and money.

And yes, I have made my point crystal clear. Thanks for offering me the opportunity to beat you again.
:-)

Realized you made another mistake with this comment, eh?

Originally Posted by Donger:
I'd rather they not be here at all
Trying to walk that back and change it, eh?

Usually the first, go to response is the truest.

But good for you for recognizing, too late, what you said.

:-):-)

/the majority use to not be rejected at such high numbers, remember. Why you would base your opinion on data from the last 2 years knowing full well Trump administration is actively working to stop asylum claims is perplexing, until I reason you want to believe because it fits your preconceived notions
[Reply]
Donger 11:52 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
:-)

Realized you made another mistake with this comment, eh?



Trying to walk that back and change it, eh?

Usually the first, go to response is the truest.

But good for you for recognizing, too late, what you said.

:-):-)
There's no mistake, Mexican Jumping Bean. As you might notice, I said that I would imagine that they don't like asylum-seekers because the majority of them are rejected, which is a waste of American time and money.

No, no walking back. I'd prefer we have no asylum-seekers. Don't you?
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:56 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
You've been reduced to copying and pasting your own fatally-flawed "argument." Excellent. My work is done here.
:-):-)

Tap out acknowledged.
[Reply]
Donger 11:58 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
:-):-)

Tap out acknowledged.
Not at all. I just wanted to see if you'd copy and paste again...

:-)

Would you agree that this thread is about asylum-seekers, and not illegals?
[Reply]
Loneiguana 11:59 AM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
There's no mistake, Mexican Jumping Bean. As you might notice, I said that I would imagine that they don't like asylum-seekers because the majority of them are rejected, which is a waste of American time and money.

No, no walking back. I'd prefer we have no asylum-seekers. Don't you?
:-)
Yes, you are trying to walk back your original, straight forward comment of "I don't want them here" with these new "reasons". Shame you didn't notice how that helps my original point before hand.

Why would I prefer zero asylum seekers in the self-proclaimed richest, greatest, most christian country in the world? That kind of attitude caused America to refuse a ship carrying German Jewish refugees during the 30s.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 12:01 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Not at all. I just wanted to see if you'd copy and paste again...

:-)

Would you agree that this thread is about asylum-seekers, and not illegals?
Yes. Asylum seekers who are following the law. You don't want them here, despite them following the law. And want to change the law. Which was my original point, that destroys the conservative go to argument against immigrants. Again, thanks.
[Reply]
Donger 12:02 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
:-)
Yes, you are trying to walk back your original, straight forward comment of "I don't want them here" with these new "reasons". Shame you didn't notice how that helps my original point before hand.

Why would I prefer zero asylum seekers in the self-proclaimed richest, greatest, most christian country in the world? That kind of attitude caused America to refuse a ship carrying German Jewish refugees during the 30s.
I'm not walking back anything, you dolt. I have multiple reasons for not wanting asylum-seekers here. And I've already listed one:

because the majority of them are rejected, which is a waste of American time and money.

Add to that the fact that since they were rejected, they weren't actually qualified to seek asylum and were trying to game the system.

You really can't think enough for yourself to fathom why it would be best if there were no asylum-seekers? Well, I'm not going to clue you in, at least not yet. Perhaps some other kind soul will do so for you.
[Reply]
Page 4 of 6
< 1234 56 >
Up