Posted on 04/16/2019 4:52:58 PM PDT by jazusamo
Attorney General William Barr said in a new ruling issued Tuesday that asylum seekers who are able to demonstrate a "credible fear" and are then sent to full deportation proceedings are not eligible to be released on bond.
The ruling, which will go into effect in 90 days, states that a previous decision allowing for asylum seekers to be released on bond while their case is being heard by an immigration judge was incorrect. Only the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to release the asylum seekers, he wrote.
“I conclude that such aliens remain ineligible for bond, whether they are arriving at the border or are apprehended in the United States,” Barr wrote.
Barr is overturning a 2005 ruling that determined that asylum seekers are eligible for bond if they are able to exhibit they have credible fear of persecution or danger if they leave the U.S.
But the attorney general argues that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the administration is permitted to detain all undocumented immigrants who were initially placed in expedited removal proceedings, but then passed the credible fear test and were transferred to a full hearing before an immigration judge.
He also pointed to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that found that the law did not place limits on how long an immigrant can be detained.
Some asylum seekers are exempted from this rule, like families and unaccompanied migrant children.
Barr’s directive comes shortly after a federal judge in Washington state ruled that certain asylum seekers who request a hearing before an immigration judge must be granted that hearing within seven days, or be released.
And the rule comes amid a legal battle on the Trump administration's policy requiring that asylum seekers remain in Mexico while their cases are under consideration.
A federal judge last week issued an injunction against the policy, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay for that order as it considers the administration's appeal.
President Trump has also recently spoken out against policies for asylum seekers.
“I’m sorry, we’re full," he said of his response to both asylum seekers and undocumented immigrants seeking to stay in the U.S., during a trip to the southern border earlier this month.
It was all preventable.
Obama is not a natural born citizen.
Of course you are correct.
We should have had Hillary in 2008 instead...
In civil service when they want to get rid of someone they can’t fire; they promote them to the point of incompetence so they fill a slot with very little responsibility but are not a problem for anyone. They may even invent a position. I imagine it’s a lonely career existence and the end of their promotion possibilities.
I think Sessions reached too high and found himself out of his depth where the best he could do is tread water. I don’t blame him entirely. Yes, he should have declined, but being AG of the USA was probably too much to say no to; even for a sitting Senator. On the other hand I also blame those who were in charge of vetting candidates for the AG position. A key position at the upper levels of our government and the existing Administration.
I guess we can chalk it up to being a new Administration at the time and just let it go at that and move on.
I was unsure of how it would go with Barr but so far I’m liking what we are seeing. He seems fair, honest, and unafraid to get into the mix with the hard ball choices. That’s all I could ever ask for. The last thing we need is another corrupt AG like Holder or Lynch. Anyone who can make the dems squeal like little piggies has got to be doing something right. :)
Hillary is eligible, Obama was not.
Did an AG ever became a President?....just asking for a friend.
Did you read the article?From the article...
This is problematic!
Some asylum seekers are exempted from this rule, like families and unaccompanied migrant children.
Angry chimp noises on MSNBC and CNN at 11.
Neither Congress nor the courts have any intention of allowing this policy to be enforced.
The reason Obama’s executive orders were carried out was because Congress and the courts supported them.
Republicans in Congress who secretly support the progressive agenda (i.e., most of them) LOVE Democrat and globalist President’s EOs because then they a) get the policy they really want and b) get to run against them back home.
Trump and Barr face a phalanx of globalists who wield tremendous and legitimate constitutional power.
Voting is not going to get us out of this mess.
Tagline is OK, but a sick old drunk didn’t come up with all that was done.
It was an Obama-Jarrett-Soros-Persons Unknown coup, not a Clinton coup.
Sessions was the lone wolf speaking out against the abominable H-1B visa scam. For that I am eternally grateful.
Yep - the times he has been grilled by the idiots showed me he had a lot of potential...they pissed him off which doesn’t hurt....
:: able to demonstrate a “credible fear” ::
What isn’t said is that “credible fear” will be based on their return to MEXICO who has provided them free and safe travel through their nation.
You are exactly correct. This isn't our problem. It should be mexico's.
I don't get why nobody talks about that point, even on Fox. I've actually read it in the US Code. Also think I've read there is some kind of international agreement that says the same. Could be wrong on that one.
“Did you read the article?From the article...”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a matter of fact I did read the article, I’ve also read the article linked below and you should too.
Contrary to your poo pooing this ruling by AG Barr it is a big step in the right direction.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3742573/posts
NONE of these people have a “credible fear” claim. If they were really in fear they would take refuge in the 1st country available to them, Mexico.
If you listen to them they say, “well Mexico said I could only stay for a year.” and “I want to be in the US because I can get a job there.” This is NOT “credible fear” it is THEIR PREFERENCE.
Bump!
“Did you read the article?From the article...”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a matter of fact I did read the article, I’ve also read the article linked below and you should too.
Contrary to your poo pooing this ruling by AG Barr it is a big step in the right direction.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3742573/posts
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I did read the article below...And I still stand by my comments...DON’T LET THEM TAKE A STEP IN...Once in, they are here forever...Don’t facilitate their staying here...not with camps, not with deciding what cities, etc...
Ruling has Loophole(s) size of Grand Canyon...As I recall, a Fox news report with Border Agent saying 65% of the apprehensions are families a huge change from years past...
Also...
Barr directed officials to delay implementation of the law for 90 days, giving DHS managers — and congressional leaders — three months to decide which migrants should be released into the nation’s cities and towns.
STOP THEM AT THE BORDER...Just like we stop US citizens who illegally breach barriers with sound and water cannons and tear gas/pepper spray why are we not doing that on border to stop this invasion...
Why did we stop laying Costantina wire....
We see what happened in Europe...Cannot abide it here
I don’t disagree that what you say should be done.
I do say that AG Barr has the legal authority to do what he is proposing as well as the means to do it and enforce it.
As for stopping them at the border and not letting them put a foot on US soil we know that is impossible at this time.
Also, the asylum law has got to be amended and we know that Congress is not about to do that anytime soon.
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.