https://www.cbsnews.com/news/justice-department-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-border-asylum-ban/
Justice Department asks Supreme Court to allow border asylum ban
The Justice Department on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow the Trump administration to implement its most sweeping effort yet to overhaul the asylum system along the border while a legal challenge plays out in court.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents the federal government before the court, urged the justices to issue an administrative stay on a ruling by a judge in San Francisco, who earlier in the summer blocked a regulation that would make most migrants from Central America and other countries ineligible for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The administration had already asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to do so. Earlier this month, the appellate court did not grant the government’s request, but it said the injunction blocking the near-total asylum ban only applies within the court’s jurisdiction. The decision meant that administration could proceed with the policy in New Mexico and Texas, but not in California and Arizona, which fall within the purview of the 9th Circuit.
Through its filing on Monday, the administration is asking the high court to allow the government to implement the rule along the entire border. Francisco said the policy “serves important public purposes” and “alleviates a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system by prioritizing asylum seekers who most need asylum in the United States.”
The rule, a joint effort by the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, restricts access to the U.S. asylum system for non-Mexican migrants who traveled through Mexico and other countries to reach the southwestern border, but did not seek protection in those nations.
Although designed to stem the flow of Central American migrants journeying north, the regulation also would affect people from other parts of the world trying to reach the U.S. through Mexico, including Cubans, Venezuelans, Brazilians and central Africans, who have traveled to the U.S.-Mexico border in higher numbers this year.
Administration officials have maintained that the rule would help curb what they call “forum shopping” by migrants. They have repeatedly accused migrants of preferring to seek asylum in the U.S., rather than in the countries along their journey that might be able to offer them safe haven.
“The rule also screens out asylum claims that are less likely to be meritorious by denying asylum to aliens who refused to seek protection in third countries en route to the southern border,” Francisco wrote Monday. “In turn, the rule deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States.”
But immigrant advocates have said the policy ignores U.S. and international refugee law and would force countless migrants and asylum seekers to return to place where they may face persecution.
When he approved a injunction against the ban in late July, Judge Jon Tigar of U.S. District Court in San Francisco seemed to agree with the concerns raised by the plaintiffs in one of two lawsuits. “An injunction would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors,” he wrote in his ruling.
Late last year, Tigar halted a similar effort by the administration to prohibit migrants who cross the border illegally from being able to seek asylum. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, later rejected the administration’s request to stay Tigar’s ruling.
Q
I have been assuming Trump would refuse to debate potential primary opponents, but this is the first solid information I’ve found on the topic.
https://apnews.com/5dc0d0509dd2459fa4452b67957f1b1f
GOP Trump challengers won’t get much help from their party
FTA:
Unlike some other incumbents who drew primary challengers, Trump now has the overwhelming support of his party’s voters. Other incumbents — in both parties — “saw their base support erode a bit before reelection efforts,” said Keith Appell, a Washington-based Republican strategist. “If anything, this president’s support has grown within his party.”
Weld has held out the prospect that a multicandidate Republican field might prompt primary campaign debates. But Republican National Committee members have done away with their standing debate committee ahead of next year’s election, and scheduling debates could prove difficult since primary voting begins in about five months.
The RNC has also approved a nonbinding resolution declaring its “undivided support for President Donald J. Trump and his effective presidency.”
Walsh, a conservative talk show host, seemed to be feeling the effects of Trump’s power over the party Monday night, when he revealed on CNN that he had lost his national radio show. He noted that 80 to 90% of his listeners were fans of Trump and said he knew his job could be in jeopardy when he made the decision to seek the White House.
...
As Sanford considers running, South Carolina’s Republican Party has left open the possibility of canceling its primary as soon as next month. The party did so in 1984 to help Ronald Reagan and in 2004 to help George W. Bush. Democrats did the same for Bill Clinton in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012.
...
In September, Nevada’s Republican Party will consider bypassing its 2020 presidential nominating caucuses and instead have governing members endorse Trump, preempting all primary challenges. Nevada goes third in primary voting, after Iowa and New Hampshire but before South Carolina — and that possibility drew an angry statement from Weld, who said, “Donald Trump is doing his best to make the Republican Party his own personal club.”