Trump’s Immigration Policy Of Staying In Mexico Still Stands
The Trump administration, in a case that was seen as pivotal to stopping the flow of illegal immigration, had their policy of forcing migrants to stay in Mexico until they are cleared by the immigration court to enter, after being challenged by the ACLU was halted by the courts. In a surprising turn around reversed their own decision giving the Trump administration to present their case why this was needed for national security.
On Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously to suspend an order issued early on the day to block the Trump’s administration’s policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico. At the same time, their cases wound through U.S. Courts.
The reason for this change of policy was evident at the time, the return rate to the courts for hearings was standing at 41%, almost half of the cases were no shows, thus forcing immigration and ICE to find these individuals and expel them from the U.S., something that took up both resources and money to enforce.
Trump tried to change this trend by forcing migrants seeking entry into the U.S. to stay in Mexico, only when they were cleared by the courts to enter the U.S. would they be allowed to cross into national territory. The enforcement of this has caused the numbers of illegal immigration to drop since implemented, something the left has attacked as xenophobic.
The 9th overturned their halt on Trump’s policy until the Justice Department could present their case why 25,000 asylum seekers subject to the policy are currently waiting in Mexico and posses a “massive and irreparable national-security of public-safety concerns.”
Government attorneys said immigration lawyers had begun demanding that asylum seekers be allowed in the United States, with one insisting that 1,000 people be allowed to enter at one location.
“The Court’s reinstatement of the injunction causes the United States public and the government significant and irreparable harms — to border security, public safety, public health, and diplomatic relations,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
ACLU attorney Judy Rabinovitz called the suspension of Friday’s order “a temporary step.”
“We will continue working to permanently end this unspeakably cruel policy,” she said.
As has been seen by other rulings by the 9th circuit court, this will be rushed after they give their final judgment to the Supreme Court, where history has shown the High Court will overturn their ruling due to the constitution provides the Administration with authority over migration, not the Judicial.
Illegal immigration since the “Stay in Mexico” policy has taken effect has fallen to just 20% of what it used to be; the policy has, in effect, caused an 80% reduction in illegal migration. This is something that illegal immigration supporters find unpalatable.
In a critical reply to the ruling, the Justice Department said it “not only ignores the constitutional authority of Congress and the administration for a policy in effect for over a year but also extends relief beyond the parties before the court.” Wolf, the acting Homeland Security secretary, called the decision “grave and reckless.”
Siding with the American Civil Liberties Union and other migration advocacy groups, who argued the policy violates international treaty obligations against sending people to a nation where they could be tortured on the grounds of religion, race or ethnicity, political beliefs, or belonging to a particular social group. Judge William Fletcher, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote the majority decision.
A claim that is laughable at best, there is no sign that these migrants are suffering in any way, and the fact that the U.S. is aiding Mexico in caring for these migrants shows just the opposite.
Fletcher wrote the government set the bar too high for Asylum-seekers, felt that time did not allow officers to have proper time to interview asylum-seekers or to allow them time to access their attorneys.
Fletcher took asylum seekers’ side, quoting them while saying, “it was enough, more than enough to put a halt on this.” This being the claim that they were suffering prosecution and in danger from being in Mexico, although there is not a shred of evidence to support this claim.
Fletcher was joined by Judge Richard Paez, who were both appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton. Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, dissented.
“The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that it could strand asylum-seekers in Mexico and subject them to grave danger,” Rabinovitz, the ACLU attorney, said. “It’s time for the administration to follow the law and stop putting asylum-seekers in harm’s way.”
Rabinovitz said Justice Department officials informed the ACLU that they will ask the Supreme Court to reinstate the policy and that the nation’s highest court could step in “very soon.” Until then, she said, no one can be returned to Mexico under the policy. It was unclear when those in Mexico with pending cases may return to the U.S., but it may be when they cross for their next hearings.
This ruling stems from an appeals court in San Francisco that decided to keep another Trump policy on hold, one that denied any asylum to people who cross illegally into the U.S. from Mexico.
They also tried to stop Trump from access money in the Department of Defense to build the wall, a case that was overturned by the Supreme Court, giving Trump back the right to continue building the wall, this was in addition to the victories they had already given allow his administration to stop government benefits to new green card holders and extending the travel ban to some Muslim majority nations.
Asylum has been granted in less than 1% of the roughly 35,000 Remain in Mexico cases that have been decided. Only 5% are represented by attorneys, many of whom are reluctant to visit clients in Mexico.
This is why this is so desperately pushed, with this number remaining, only 1% getting through the court, further, we are now told that we have over 22 million illegals in this nation, Trump and his administration felt this was a great need to put a halt to this.