Posted on 09/11/2019 3:54:43 PM PDT by billorites
Washington - The Supreme Court authorized the Trump administration for now to deny asylum to Central Americans who cross through other countries on their way to the U.S., a boost for White House efforts to tighten the southern border.
The court, in a brief written order, stayed the effect of lower court rulings that barred the administration from enforcing the asylum restrictions. One of those injunctions was issued just this week by a federal judge in California.
The policy, one of several measures the Trump administration has taken to deter immigration from Latin America, demands that refugees seek asylum in a safe country they enter before reaching the U.S.—and bars them from refuge in the U.S. should they fail to do so. For those taking the land route from El Salvador, Guatemala or Honduras, that ordinarily would mean Mexico.
The court’s unsigned order, a single paragraph that didn’t provide its legal rationale, allows the government to implement the policy while litigation proceeds. In December, the court, by a 5-4 vote, declined to lift lower court orders blocking a less severe policy that denied asylum to applicants who didn’t present themselves at an official port of entry. It wasn’t immediately clear how the court distinguished between the two cases.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a dissent Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Stay out of country. We aren’t the dumping ground for people from failed countries. Man up and fix your own country.
‘Allowed to deny’....in plain language, Trump is permitted to enforce the law.
No court should be involved.
This is easy to understand, but what is the status of would-be Mexican illegals?
When you flee your country to get away from the suck, the first other countries suck you come to is what you get.
Trump’s judicial appointments hard at work. Winning!!!
WINNING!!!
Looks like the WSJ is admitting the truth that our nation is run by 9 oligarch despots...
The legal rationale is when one is seeking asylum, the idea is supposed to be you get asylum from the first country you land in, because you are fleeing supposedly for your life. You're not supposed to be shopping for the best benefits and freebies package.
Won’t someone think of the poor Guatemalans?
I can’t read the rest. WSJ.
So will an Obama appointed judge try to overrule this?
“The court’s unsigned order, a single paragraph that didn’t provide its legal rationale”
Which is the courts perfect way of saying the security of the country falls to the executive branch and we should let them do their job.
Just another thing that shouldn’t be decided by the courts.
The Mexican illegals have less rights regarding asylum than the other countries in central America. There is a loop hole of sorts that has allowed people from all the other countries (except Mexico)to get special waivers. I do not know the details, but this is why the problems are all the other non-Mexican countries.
What a load of crap. The Supremes did not authorize President Trump to do any thing. They upheld his authority as President to limit immigration.
Trump has consistently deferred to the courts on immigration and national security. Even after the emergency declaration in which congress had the power to check and balance and failed to overturn. Can you imagine an epidemic or war subject to judicial fiat by 200 judges. A helluva way to respond to emergencies.
Trump has consistently deferred to the courts on immigration and national security.
If the President simply ignored the courts sooner or later that act would be a charge in his impeachment.
Rightly or wrongly the Democrats are using the courts to obstruct the President, but he is slowly winning, and winning legally.
any deferment to the court after declaring an emergency is weak and an abdication of powder. What would happen off these decisions went the other way? How would that lessen the emergency? The appropriate and determined use of power is what is needed in a president.
Black-robed tyrants fared well in our first civil war. Not one was dragged into the street and hanged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.