9th Circuit Says Trump Can Legally Deport Asylum Seekers Back to Mexico


9th circuit rules Trump can legally deport asylum seekers back to Mexico

The decision is in response to the Trump administration’s emergency motion filing from Thursday asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Fransisco to stop a nationwide injunction that would bar them from forcing migrants to wait in Mexico as their asylum cases are processed.

Nbcnews.com reports: The court asked that opposition to the emergency motion be filed by Tuesday, 9 a.m. local time.

 The government’s motion said the injunction issued Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg rested on “serious errors of law” and blocked an initiative “designed to address the dramatically escalating burdens of unauthorized migration.”

 The administration had asked for an administrative stay that would take place immediately and remain in place while the court considers the issue of a longer stay while the appeals process plays out in a possibly months-long process.

 The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the court earlier Friday to deny the emergency request that would keep in place the administration’s policy of returning asylum-seekers to Mexico while they wait for c...

 In response to the judge’s decision Friday evening, Judy Rabinovitz, who argued the case for the ACLU, said, “this is just an interim step while the court considers the government’s stay request.”

“We’re very disappointed in the 9th Circuit’s decision and we hope that the stay will be short-lived,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Friday night. The group is part of the lawsuit seeking to stop the policy.

“The plaintiffs and others like them are very vulnerable to harm in Mexico and should be able to pursue their asylum claims in the United States,” she added.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.

 The organizations seeking to stop the policy of returning migrants to Mexico said in a brief earlier Friday that the government’s request should be denied and that there was not “sufficient urgency” to warrant an administrative stay.

“The government should not be allowed to manufacture the need for an emergency administrative stay by failing to timely file a stay request,” the brief said.

In issuing a preliminary injunction temporarily stopping the policy, Seeborg had ordered that it go into effect Friday to give the administration time to appeal.

“It was a huge victory for us and it’s a huge defeat for the Trump administration at least in terms of a signal that you are not above the law,” Rabinovitz said of Seeborg’s ruling.

 Seeborg also ruled that all 11 migrants named in the lawsuit must be allowed to enter the U.S. within two days of the order taking effect.

 While the order was not set to officially go into effect until Friday, an official with Mexico’s immigration agency told NBC News the government had not been returning newly arrived migrants to Mexico since the judge issued his decision on Monday.

 Since the policy was implemented in late January, 1,323 Central American migrants have been returned to Mexico, according to a statement from Mexico’s National Institute of Migration. Of those, 308 were families including 428 children under 18, according to the statement.

 A Department of Justice official told NBC News that since Seeborg’s order all migrants affected by the policy who have had court dates in the U.S. have been told they will not be returned to Mexico following those hearings. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 Critics of the policy say forcing migrants to wait in Mexico puts their lives in danger and violates their legal right to seek asylum in the U.S.

 Trump administration attorneys have said the policy was meant to deter “baseless” asylum claims that were “overtaxing” the U.S. immigration system.

 Families seeking asylum had previously been allowed to stay in the U.S., either in detention or released into the country, while awaiting their court hearings.

 Rabinovitz said that the ACLU would also be working to get relief for migrants affected by the policy whose court dates in the U.S. may not be for months.

“Clearly they should benefit even though the preliminary injunction doesn’t order the government to bring them back. They can’t be subjected to this policy anymore so there’s no way they can be required to stay in Mexico,” she said.

https://newspunch.com/9th-circuit-trump-deport-asylum-seekers-mexico/

Views: 20

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

 No, they want, big money for the little elite family.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

Angry Dem Impeachment ‘Witness’: Pam Karlan Donated Thousands To Hillary And Was On Clinton’s List For Potential SCOTUS Nomination

Image result for Pam Karlan

The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, kicked off its first impeachment circus Wednesday morning.

The four ‘witnesses’ testifying have never actually witnessed any of Trump’s dealings with Ukraine firsthand — the four witnesses are law professors offering legal analysis.

One of the witnesses the Dems rolled out is an angry Hillary Clinton donor who was on Crooked’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

No wonder why this unhinged, dowdy woman is so pissed off!

“Professor Pam Karlan donated thousands of dollars to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination. So she certainly has no vendetta against President Trump,” GOP Rep. Mark Walker said.

Congressman Walker also pointed out that Noah Feldman, the Dems first partisan witness in Wednesday’s hearing tweeted about impeaching Trump right after he was sworn in.

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker

Meet Noah Feldman, House Democrats first partisan witness.

Look at the date of this tweet. He has been trying to get @realDonaldTrump impeached since 46 days into his presidency.

His reason? Trump criticized President Obama.

This is a sham impeachment with sham witnesses. https://twitter.com/NoahRFeldman/status/839185127494254592 

Noah Feldman @NoahRFeldman

Trump's wiretap tweets raise risk of impeachment http://bv.ms/2mY1ueX  via @BV

Rep. Mark Walker   RepMarkWalker
 

The next witness, Karlan, has donated thousands to Democrats and was on Hillary Clinton’s list for a potential Supreme Court nomination.

So she certainly has no vendetta against @realDonaldTrump.

These witnesses are as serious as House Democrats impeachment case: not at all.

The entire sham show trial is stacked with partisan hacks who have wanted to impeach Trump from the moment he won in November of 2016.

Norm Eisen, the Democrats’ counsel who is blasting Trump and questioning witnesses in Wednesday’s show trial, tweeted about impeaching Trump before Donald Trump was even sworn into office!

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service