Posted on 07/02/2018 5:17:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A federal district judge has ruled President Donald Trumps administrations practice of indefinitely detaining some asylum seekers cant proceed, dealing a major blow to what immigration attorneys have said is one of the administrations tools to deter people from seeking safe haven in this country.
The lawsuit was filed in March by the American Civil Liberties Union and named as a defendant the El Paso Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office. Other field offices named in the lawsuit include Detroit, Los Angeles, Newark and Philadelphia. The El Paso office covers West Texas and New Mexico.
The ACLU alleged in the lawsuit that the plaintiffs passed their initial credible fear exams the first step in the asylum process to determine if an applicant has a legitimate case. But despite having sponsors willing to provide housing in the United States, the federal government has continued to hold them instead of granting them parole.
Todays decision will have an enormous impact on asylum seekers, who pose no risk, and are currently languishing in detention. It is a rejection of the Trump administrations blanket policy of denying parole to those seeking protection in this country, said Human Rights First Legal Director Hardy Vieux.
The plaintiffs in the case include a Cuban national who fled that countrys communist regime; a Haitian ethics teacher fleeing political persecution; a Honduran national who alleges persecution for being gay; and a Venezuelan who was beaten by armed groups seeking to eliminate opposition to the Venezuelan government. They are represented by the ACLUs Immigrants Rights Project, Human Rights First, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Covington and Burling LLP, a law firm based in Washington, D.C.
In his Monday ruling, U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from denying parole to any provisional class members that are a party to the lawsuit. The lawsuit defines them as asylum seekers who traveled to the United States, were found to have a credible fear of persecution, and were referred for immigration proceedings to decide their asylum claims. The exception applies to people who pose a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Must have missed this in the Constitution, maybe the Judge and his pals wold like to show me where the Judge gets his power from to make this utter stupid decision.
So cross the border illegally, then request asylum and have a good story and you get to stay because the judge has decided that he’s a higher authority than... uh... I don’t even get the rationale - the judge is a politically hyped twit that has sided with the “abolish ICE” movement.
Laws are meaningless.
Good thing the president is not being arbitrary- he’s detaining all of them that are caught as required by federal law....
Time to ignore judges who dont have power to make these rulings. Then jail them if they keep it up.
They really want a Flood of Illegals
obama judge yet again.
Clarence Thomas just warned District Court judges they do not have the power to run the country. Slap this fool down.
SCOTUS ruling at the end of June kind of already told this punk district robed thugs that the law is clear. PRESIDENT is the one in charge, not the judiciary.
go ahead, mainstream media—pretend this is a win for you.
We know it isn’t.
While this treasonous judge is vastly exceeding his authority, President Trump now has a good option: Raise the bar on that test. First, interview the invaders to see if they have been well-enough coached to pass the initial threshold. Second, for those who pass the interview, put them on a lie detector. Anyone who does not pass? Deport them immediately. Because skilled polygraphers are limited, this will slow down the initial processing, which is an unfortunate natural consequence of judicial overreach.
Right - but it’s going to HAVE to go through the court system AGAIN!
I’m in full support of limited government and checks and balances but the courts spend more time protecting illegals and criminals than actual hard working, tax paying citizens.
the answer is obvious. Tent camp on the border. They can go back to mexico if the want. If the cross illegally a 2nd time and most do... its a felony.
Here’s a news flash for this vile black-robe tyrant:
Judges don’t have the constitutional authority to make law. Only Congress may write law. If the commie judge has a problem with that, run for a political office. Until then, GFY, judge.
The judge has made his decision. “Now let him enforce it!” - Andrew Jackson
Waited for the SCOTUS to finish their before announcing ,LOL
Friggin’ G.W. Bush appointee.
You are not a legal asylum seeker unless you go to a border entry. You can’t just cross the border, get caught, and then claim asylum. If this ruling is general to anyone crossing the border, then I suggest they be immediately sent back to Mexico to await a ruling. Otherwise, everyone will claim asylum, then be released awaiting a hearing, go to some city and never show up for the hearing.
Laws are meaningless.
**************
What’s the point of having a legislature if the courts are going to rule by fiat?
Judicial tyranny pure and simple.
We need to force asylum seekers to go to consulates outside the country and they should only be allowed to enter if/when they are granted asylum. We should no longer accept asylum seekers at the border.
Illegals are using this as a loophole, rarely do any qualify for asylum. Many don’t claim it until they are apprehended in this country for illegally crossing the border.
How is it that if you arrive at JFK Airport without a passport, you are sent back to your place of origin, whereas if you cross the Rio Grande River without a passport, you are not sent back?
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.