ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
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 12:05 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
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.
Yes, a law which I'd like to see changed.

Great, so why did you post that attempt, where you mention "'immigrants' because they break the law"? Obviously you aren't referring to "asylum-seekers" right?
[Reply]
vailpass 12:12 PM 09-11-2019
Loonig continues to solidify his lock on lifetime Douche of The Year.
[Reply]
scho63 12:24 PM 09-11-2019
Well at the end of the day, all this silly arguing aside, Trump keeps appointing judges per my OP and yet you several of you guys are down in the weeds fighting over useless shit.

Now I see why the Dems are so scared for 2020
[Reply]
Loneiguana 12:36 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
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.
Oh, you said all that in the original comment, where you said "I'd rather them not be here at all"?

Let's check... oh my

Originally Posted by Donger:
I'd rather they not be here at all, but sure, give them that. Just don't make me pay more for it than I already am.

Out of curiosity (and amusement), who do you think "those people" are?
Nope. Nothing else there.

Sure looks like you realized how damaging that original comment was and now want to walk it back with "reasons". Good luck there champ.

Originally Posted by Donger:
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.
So nice of you to trust the Trump administration's immigration courts and their zealous anti-immigrant policies. I'm sure this is a completely consistent opinion for you.

Originally Posted by Donger:
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.
Would I like a world where there are zero reasons why anyone would have to seek asylum? Sure. But let's not kid ourselves that is what you have been talking about, as you said you would rather them "not be here at all".
[Reply]
Loneiguana 12:39 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes, a law which I'd like to see changed.

Great, so why did you post that attempt, where you mention "'immigrants' because they break the law"? Obviously you aren't referring to "asylum-seekers" right?
I'm referring to conservatives who state, like you have, that you don't hate Hispanics and immigrants, you just want them to follow the law.

That doesn't jibe with conservatives also saying they "don't want them here" concerning immigrants who follow asylum laws nor with conservatives such as yourself who want to change the law to negatively impact said immigrants coming here.
[Reply]
Beef Supreme 12:39 PM 09-11-2019
I hope Donger and LoneVagina get into it and go back and forth for 20 pages or so. I'm not gonna read it, but maybe it will keep them busy.
[Reply]
Donger 12:43 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
I'm referring to conservatives who state, like you have, that you don't hate Hispanics and immigrants, you just want them to follow the law.

That doesn't jibe with conservatives also saying they "don't want them here" concerning immigrants who follow asylum laws nor with conservatives such as yourself who want to change the law to negatively impact said immigrants coming here.
Yes, it does, actually. I'd prefer they follow the law, and I'd also like to have the asylum law changed so that they can't apply for asylum at our border or, worse, after entering illegally. Those are not in conflict at all.
[Reply]
Donger 12:45 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Oh, you said all that in the original comment, where you said "I'd rather them not be here at all"?

Let's check... oh my



Nope. Nothing else there.

Sure looks like you realized how damaging that original comment was and now want to walk it back with "reasons". Good luck there champ.



So nice of you to trust the Trump administration's immigration courts and their zealous anti-immigrant policies. I'm sure this is a completely consistent opinion for you.
Nothing new here. You could just say you're sorry.

Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Would I like a world where there are zero reasons why anyone would have to seek asylum? Sure. But let's not kid ourselves that is what you have been talking about, as you said you would rather them "not be here at all".
Great! We agree on something. I do, too.
[Reply]
Just Passin' By 12:51 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by :
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.
So the 9th now has judges telling its own circuit to fuck off and having to get slapped down, as well as already taking that approach with the SCOTUS?

:-)


I wonder when Roberts will again remind us all about how there are no Obama/Bush/Trump/Clinton judges...
[Reply]
Loneiguana 01:47 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes, it does, actually. I'd prefer they follow the law, and I'd also like to have the asylum law changed so that they can't apply for asylum at our border or, worse, after entering illegally. Those are not in conflict at all.
Your own comment here is in conflict. You want them to follow the law, but yet are saying they are entering illegally, even though it isn't illegal for a refugee to enter a country to request asylum. You, yourself admitted this in the very first post.

But that is beside the point. As you've made clear, you don't want them here even if they follow the law. Sorry, but that undermines that standard conservative trope of being against immigrants because "they don't follow the law". Obviously, there are other factors at work since you don't even want immigrants who follow the law here.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 01:49 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
Nothing new here. You could just say you're sorry.
Cute. Just like Trump, you ignore your own words when its suits you at the time.

Conservatives really aren't all that different from each other.
[Reply]
Donger 01:51 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Your own comment here is in conflict. You want them to follow the law, but yet are saying they are entering illegally, even though it isn't illegal for a refugee to enter a country to request asylum. You, yourself admitted this in the very first post.

But that is beside the point. As you've made clear, you don't want them here even if they follow the law. Sorry, but that undermines that standard conservative trope of being against immigrants because "they don't follow the law". Obviously, there are other factors at work since you don't even want immigrants who follow the law here.
It is illegal to enter our country without permission. It is true that those illegals can apply for asylum even if they have entered illegally. That does happen. Others apply for asylum at port of entry and gain access legally.

Like you, I'd rather them not come at all, legally or not.

None of that is a conflict.
[Reply]
Loneiguana 02:26 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
It is illegal to enter our country without permission. It is true that those illegals can apply for asylum even if they have entered illegally. That does happen. Others apply for asylum at port of entry and gain access legally.

Like you, I'd rather them not come at all, legally or not.

None of that is a conflict.
:-)

You so desperately want to call refugees following our and international law illegals. Really want that "justification" for not wanting "those people" here, eh? So desperate, you want to change the law just so "those people" have a harder time coming here. Yup, that undermines the whole "Don't care as long as the follow the law" argument conservatives love.

Oh, I never agreed that they rather not come at all. Unlike you, I don't operate on what I wish the world would be. I deal with reality. Reality has refugees. And we are the so called greatest most christian nation on earth. I enjoy it when America holds itself to its own high standard.
[Reply]
Donger 02:37 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
:-)

You so desperately want to call refugees following our and international law illegals. Really want that "justification" for not wanting "those people" here, eh? So desperate, you want to change the law just so "those people" have a harder time coming here. Yup, that undermines the whole "Don't care as long as the follow the law" argument conservatives love.

Oh, I never agreed that they rather not come at all. Unlike you, I don't operate on what I wish the world would be. I deal with reality. Reality has refugees. And we are the so called greatest most christian nation on earth. I enjoy it when America holds itself to its own high standard.
No. I call anyone who enters our country without authorization an illegal or illegals. So should you, because it's just a fact, even if you don't like it.

I already explained to you (not that it was needed) who I was referring to with "those people." Are you really so desperate to justify your accusation of racism that you'll just ignore something that was and is patently obvious?

Sure you did, just like me:

Would I like a world where there are zero reasons why anyone would have to seek asylum? Sure.
[Reply]
vailpass 03:05 PM 09-11-2019
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme:
I hope Donger and LoneVagina get into it and go back and forth for 20 pages or so. I'm not gonna read it, but maybe it will keep them busy.
Yep. Donger presenting logic and Loonig gushing vaginal blood.
[Reply]
Page 5 of 6
< 12345 6 >
Up