Exactly why can't the powerful Mexican drug cartels be contained or rather put out of business. Which politicians are enabling these horrible people.. who belong in jail at the very least?
Frankly, we have $$ for wars against ISIS far away --m why don't we get serious and get rid of the drug cartels on out doorsteps.
So far as asylum seekers -- I am not sure that having an abusive husband or being threatened by gangs is grounds for asylum. We have plenty of problems in the USA that are similar... and birth control must be addressed. Implants work for several years.
19
@Anna
You also can't go to the police, because the very money the gangs extract from you in exchange for your 'safety' goes directly to the police. The cops are as desperate as you are, so they are willing to be bribed out of their duty to serve and protect you and your family. For a few more centavos from the gangs, the cops also agree to sequester anyone who resists the gangs' demands. Included in this exclusive offer is the free information about the whereabouts and of those naive enough to come to the cops for help (this has a lot to do with why the idea of seeking asylum in neighboring countries is simply illogical--all virtue signalling and politicking aside, the simple fact is that these people will not be safe from the threats of their home countries
You've heard about a group of similarly desperate, fearful people leaving your shattered community to head for the United States, where you've heard you can seek asylum. There will be large numbers of people, so hopefully you and your daughter will be safe from the roving gangs of Mexico. You know all about how they may kidnap your daughter and traffic her into sex slavery.
So, you go. If you want to live, there is simply no choice.
Now, the thing is that I'm a friend and advocate to many people with a story just like this. I've read accounts of literally hundreds more.
The horrors they are escaping are not exaggerated.
8
@Anna
Agree. If pressure was applied to the corporations down there ripping up the countries, we might see some effective action. Like, for instance, let's put a tariff on avocados of 1000% or anything else we buy a lot of. I think we can exist for a while without their products. That message would spread as fast as this virus seems to be.
It's time to use every avenue for stopping the problem there. Likewise, people, here, should stop and think about their use of drugs and what it's doing to others.
Also, I can't help but question these huge flows of people and why they don't think of using their abilities to form militias or some kind of group to protect each other and resist the elements that are ruining their countries.
I'm concerned that the reason is that they want to join relatives already here for family and economic reasons. The substantial decline in the murder rate in all these countries over the last 8 years would suggest. that is more the case.
I believe that MPP is a valid response and this decision should be overturned in the full court review.
6
@Julian
The question I am asking is why isn't there law and order... I have no illusions as to the severity of what people are facing.. and perhaps the US with MX's permission needs to deploy its troops to the worst areas. The richest man in the world Carlos Slim is Mxican… so take that $$ and train troops and an army against the drug warlords... whose names are know. BTW in the case of drugs I am totally in favor of capital punishment-- worse or the same as mass murder.
OH NO. Corporate profits and Wall Street gains are considered reality... and the plight of the common man... well, chose your parents better!?!
Mexico is supposedly a Catholic country and Christians are supposed to behave better -- so what in the culture makes this behavior OK? And why do MEN think behaving badly is fun, correct or whatever else they seem to think? Let's have a real war on druglords.
3
Anyone who comes to the border and asks for asylum is assigned to a special officer who conducts a preliminary interview to determine if the person might possibly qualify for asylum here in the U.S. This interview is so lax that approximately 90% of those who request asylum are entered into the asylum process.
Before Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, the 90% of people who passed the initial asylum interview were let into the U.S. to go wherever they wanted until their hearings before an immigration judge. Up to 43% of these people did not show up at court for their hearings to explain their situations to an immigration judge, and so lost their cases.
The United States signed on to the U.N. Convention on Refugees which says foreigners may seek asylum for persecution due to their nationality, race, religion, politics, or membership in a specific social group. Using these criteria, immigration judges have been finding that few of the Central Americans who did show up for their hearings had cases that qualified for asylum.
Counting the people who did not show up for their hearings and those who did attend their hearings, only 10 to 15% met the criteria for asylum.
Congress should tighten the initial interview at the border so that only those with a real chance of qualifying for asylum are entered into the asylum process.
30
@ann
agree. until people make a prima facie showing that they satisfy asylum law standards, they shd not be permitted any benefits of being in this Country. is this requirement really so different from entitled foreign travelers having to show valid passports and sometimes visas before being allowed to board flights destined for the USA? why not allow those people to board flights merely upon their own say-so, and, when they reach immigration at USA airports, repeat that say-so and be admitted pending a later hearing at a time and place that they can largely ignore with impunity. a nation is entitled to protect its borders, and that means keeping others outside until their qualifications have been established. are the consequences sometimes inhumane? doubtless they are, but not so destructive overall as the dissolution of a nation's physical definition.
13
@ann
Where are you getting this information? Since implementing the "Safe Third Country Agreement" policy, the numbers I'm hearing are more like 10% CFI approval. I work full-time in the field.
The interview you mention is called the Credible Fear Interview. Many did not pass it before STCA; even more do not after. Those who do absolutely have to stay detained until granted parole.
Upon passing their CFI, an applicant still faces a lengthy series of brief appearances called master hearings. They have a few moments to explain their case to a judge. Then they go back to detention. Later, they appear at a series of more in-depth appearances, called individual hearings. It is usually at this point that they may be eligible for parole. It is rare that parole is granted in fewer than five months.
They may not go "wherever they want." In fact, one of the conditions of parole (be it under bond, by recognizance, or through the ISAP ankle monitor program) is a sponsorship letter from a person willing to take on that detained person if and when they are released. That sponsor must provide proof of citizenship, proof of residence, and a copy of the previous year's federal tax documents.
I certainly know nothing about you or your experiences in the world, but I know a good deal about this process from my work in the field. Respectfully, I suggest you inform yourself a bit more about the asylum process. USCIS and numerous legal academies have free information available online.
13
@ann
First,
the standards for asylum should be tightened so that there is asylum only from government persecution --
not from domestic violence,
not from gang violence,
not from misogynistic cultural traditions,
and not from poverty.
Second,
there should not be any right to seek asylum in the USA after leaving their own country and traversing another county to come here.
Third,
They should be held in detention at the border until they actually prove their claim for asylum --
on grounds of religious or ethnic government persecution only.
And if they drag their kids along,
then they should all be held in detention together.
And if the Dems are squeamish about supposedly squalid detention facilities, Dems need to step up and provide funding for whatever level of comfort they think is warranted.
And if Dems are whining about "backlogs" in the "process", Dems need to provide funding for enough judges and other personnel to speed up the process.'
And when the ultimate decision of the process is that there is no genuine claim for government religious or ethic persecution,
the process needs to lead to prompt deportation --
straight from detention.
No exceptions.
No intervening release into the USA while the process drags out.
No useless fig-leaf "alternatives to detention".
14
Boy I hope the administration can get a prompt review of this liberal court ruling from the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court should expedite review. It seems so unfair to all of us citizens and taxpayers who are being taken advantage of. I wish all the applicants a nice life experience in their country of birth. Otherwise we will be paying for all their welfare benefits from here on out.
56
@JW,
What you mostly pay for is the luxurious lifestyle of a millionaire class that has amassed most of the wealth of the US.
It’s pathetic to blind oneself to this and blame one’s economic problems on poor refugees.
2
This ruling, like birthright citizenship, willsimply throw the flood gates further open. Everybody on earth wants to come here and they know that once inside, they are largely home free and very unlikely to ever have to worry about having to leave. Our immigration and asylum laws reflect a time that no longer exits when the US wasn’t the 3rd most populous country on earth and there weren’t ~8 billion humans with 10s of millions looking to flee their over populated homelands. We can humanely help people in their home countries, starting with birth control (Mexico and Central America have seen their populations go up by 4-6 x since 1950) and economic and security aid, but the age of just allowing any significant proportion of the millions of xs people that area and the rest of the world produce yearly into the US will accomplish nothing but turn the US into another crowded 3rd world country and end forever any chance of addressing climate change or any of the environmental problems we face. Time to update our laws to address a world that in no way resembles the one of the Statue of Liberty era.
91
Sorry - “not everyone in the world” wants to go to America. Denmark, Switzerland, Canada etc consistently outrank the US for quality of life. And we have kinder immigration laws. Migrants don’t increase global warming: toxic output and Trump policies do. Statistics consistently show that immigration stimulates the economy and crest/expand jobs. Refugees do not “get more” than other state beneficiaries. Read some facts, stop listening to Fox and Trump, and confront your own attitudes.
7
“Remain in Mexico” should honestly be renamed “Rot in Mexico”! This Fake President never met a cruel, dehumanizing policy that he didn’t earnestly embrace.
Why? It's working.
4
The U.S. should no longer entertain any applications for asylum. Enough is enough. End it.
32
@DRS Sorry, can't go there.
I taught (and sometimes practiced) immigration law for twenty-six years, with a special interest in refugee and asylum law. The 9th circuit opinion issued today reached its conclusion that the remain in Mexico policy is unenforceable by applying good, old-fashioned textual analysis to a statute written by Congress.
For those interested in the court's rationale or harboring a belief that it engaged in judicial over-reach, I recommend that you read the decision. It is available here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/28/19-15716.pdf
15
@RetiredLawProf yeah South Bend, Mayor Pete the 9th will be overturned. Again. Or we'll gear up for the 2and Civil War.
2
@RetiredLawProf
Thank you for the truth.
5
In all this what if the Coronasvirus strikes these camps?
Well I believe the Ninth circuit could not have done more to elect Trump than if they had of said nothing. This decision will be fire up the Trump base across the entire country. Thank you Ninth circuit for your contribution to the re-election of Donald Trump. You nincompoops.
2
Our judiciary has been our bedrock since Trump took office. Without righteous, brave judges, Jim Crow's victory would be complete.
How we, as a nation, have treated immigrants, migrants, and refugees is a stain on all of us.
The next Democrat to take the White House will both need to deal with Trump's crimes against humanity and reverse the damage done by McConnell in stacking our judiciary with hundreds of judges, many of whom are unfit.
Our entire system of nominating and then confirming judges has been gamed, as has our constitution.
The next president will have the monumental task of finding ways to democratize our nation and make it impossible for another hostile takeover by the oligarchy.
We are a nation in a deeply corrupt state.
188
@Rima Regas
I was an immigrant. Treated just fine. Graduate school at that state's resident tuition rate. Secret clearance at my first job. Full rights -- except voting.
"Migrants" is anyone on the move from a country. Desiring entry to the US instead of nearby peaceful countries is strictly a desire for free benefits.
"Refugee" is an internationally defined status. It does not entitle one to enter a host country; rather, one applies -- from outside the country -- and waits.
This ruling will be appealed and reversed.
78
@Austin Liberal Unless you really think the refugees are all going the system, the people you want to wait are fleeing danger, often at the risk of losing their lives. Isn't this situation different?
17
@Austin Liberal So....what makes you a "liberal?"
Just curious.
9
Here’s an idea: Fling open the borders as some wish. See how long it lasts till everyone, or most, cry “Uncle”. Old adage: Be careful for what you wish, for it may come true.
17
@Dr Steve That is excellent idea didnt the whites entered the continent along the same line and butchered animal and people to extinction. Tables are turned so what is the problem now?
2
We need to strengthen our immigration laws as they're too lax.
Almost every other country has stricter immigration laws, but I imagine Democrats would lose voters if we strengthened them and they can't allow that.
22
It’s really a little weird to be talking about letting more people into the country while we don’t know where this coronavirus is going to end.
The obvious thing is to pause entries until we see if we have enough hospital beds, medical protection equipment, medications, etc.
Am I being racist for thinking that in a medical crisis we should assess before adding more people to the system?
22
@Lily agreed. We will never have a universal health system that will collapse if we include 32 millions illegals. It will burden health care and hurt Americans only. It already has.
6
Regardless of whose legal arguments you support, and what your politics are, call this situation at the border what it really is - a refugee crisis, involving thousands with no resources who have overwhelmed the border and its facilities. God help us all should the Covid 19 virus find its way to those camps.
13
@Brian Give them some blankets from the hospitals in China.
2
Thank you to all the independent members of our judiciary, who have assumed the role of national heroes at one of our darkest heroes.
If you want the courts to remain independent from the president, vote blue no matter who.
17
Thank goodness that we still have a judicial system that understands the law.
Although Trump will tweet that these three justices are probably democrats and don't know what they are doing.
If he really wants to see someone that doesn't know what they are doing, he should look in a mirror.
28
If these people are making legitimate asylum claims why aren't they going to nearby peaceful Spanish speaking Costa Rica?
The answer is that the majority of them are economic migrants trying to game our system.
Why not process their asylum claims at the US embassies in their home countries?
229
@John
Everyone knows, once in the US they are unlikely to ever have to leave, especially once they start having citizen kids. There is a reason that almost any group you can name has more people here than any other location on earth except their home countries. Some Central American countries have as much as 25% of their entire populations here, like El Salvador. The world and it’s millions of extra people (> 82 million more per year) need new immigration and asylum laws reflecting the reality of the 21st century. We can help them at home, but we cannot and should not take them all in.
133
Maybe because friendly Costa Rica, with its weak government, would send them by court order, home to be murdered.
The argument sounds like the argument against Yiddish speakers put forward against those fleeing the Third Reich - the amnesty in-US system was created to block genocide, you know.
Also, what makes anyone believe that the Spanish-speaking culture of Costa Rica is any more alien than that of the US?
A shared language is not a shared culture.
One does not leave the home one has known for generations and apply for an amnesty admission to “game the system”, but because one is afraid of being killed if one stays.
The real question to the author: why are you afraid of people coming to the US who might not have English as their primary language?
Is it skin color? Language? Fear someone (like my grandparents who fled the Nazis but never quite learned English, preferring Hungarian at home, starting off at the bottom, working in restaurants, building a small luncheonette and raiding two sons, both who became teachers, with MAs, after serving in the US Army.
Both ending up successful though underpaid public servants who educated thousands of pupils each...
Nobody took away anyone’s job, but they helped create dozens of others.
Stop living in fear!
122
The trump administration ended the program that allowed people to apply for asylum in their own country.
9
More nonsense fron liberal justices bought by the Democrats.
Another smack down over foreign policy coming from SCOTUS for the Ninth Circuit again.
33
The ninth district court in San Francisco will overturn any attempt by this administration to defend our nation’s sovereignty from the onslaught of migrants at our porous southern border... numbering in the tens of thousands, month after month, at a cost to American taxpayers in the $Billions, year after year after year.
The ‘asylum claim’ is a ruse. They come to exploit our public services, our schools, hospitals, labor market, birthright citizenship laws, and welfare system. They and their advocates are the reason this Democrat will be voting the other side come November. Good job, Dems.
90
@Susanna "The ‘asylum claim’ is a ruse".
You know that how?
4
@Susanna
OK Mrs. Stingy. There's simply not enough to go around here. It might bankrupt us. Vote for T. with all the rest of his hard-hearted, know-nothings who believe his lies. Your position on this issue amounts to racism. We are successful due to our immigrants. They keep us young, they perform necessary service work, they are the most law-abiding citizens, their children fight our wars, and they contribute more than most. They become the most loyal Americans when we give them a break. I'll take any immigrant over people like you--trumpers.
3
@Susanna - This will affect the migrant flows into Canada. All they have to do is walk across the border and avoid the official ports of entry. Free everything.
3
Excuse me Ms. Rabinovitz, what's "morally indefensible" is allowing ANYONE to cross our borders without prosecution, or at a minimum, thorough vetting. We know that 90% will ignore their immigration hearing date - is that defensible? We know that many of the "family units" are a sham for child smuggling operations run by the Cartels - is that defensible? We know that the Cartels recycle children to form phony "family units" - is that defensible.
56
@Tom Choy
"We know that 90% will ignore their immigration hearing date.... We know that many of the "family units" are a sham.... We know that the Cartels recycle children to form phony 'family units'..."
How did we get from what you assume to "we know"? How did your opinion turn into fact that "we" have to accept?
12
@Tom Choy We know no such thing. We've been fed such information by the likes of Faux news and Breitbart. Three times we see "We know" but "We" obviously doesn't include all members of "We" because many of we, having interacted with these so called illegals know and see no such thing. Although those are beautiful cult talking points their veracity would cause Pinocchio's nose to fall off due to excessive length if he repeated them.
4
@Tom Choy You literally just made up this 90% number. It's far, far from being true. https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/
6
This decision was made by only 3 judges in the ninth circuit. The administration will simply request an en banc review and the full court may reverse the verdict. If not, it will likely be overturned by SCOTUS, since there is no constitutional basis for the decision. And, the ninth circuit is the most overturned court in the federal system.
12
I find it amazing how narrow the thinking of the average politician is. Let's spend 35 billion dollars to keep people OUT?!?!
How about the United States spend $35 billion to build 15 one-billion-dollar factories in Mexico and 20 five hundred million dollar factories and 20 two hundred million dollar factories.
All in Mexico making products and parts which the United States needs and too often buy in China. We would own the factories and the business housed in them to one degree or another.
The first of those profits would go to pay back this investment and pay down the national debt.
The factories would all have to follow US rules on employment and safety. They would include safe housing inside walled compounds policed by private professional security.
I think you would see three things happen. First, illegal immigrants would slow. Second, better jobs would be produced in Mexico raising its total economic base and third would then create a wealthier market right next door to us.
But this idea would be intelligent, so hard for politicians with limited ability to think to envision. Just like not Stop Using Carbon, but instead of pumping seawater and using solar still to irrigate deserts and fix the excess carbon. Wow, more arable land growing food, what a bad idea.
If the US built and ran the factories in Mexico following US rules for employment and NOT companies who only want to exploit the weakest workers for maximum profit, our factories would attract the best people
5
““I can’t give up after all the time I’ve been waiting here, even though I feel like I’m going to die,” she said after a court hearing in December. Her next hearing was scheduled in Brownsville, Texas. Until then, she was told, she would have to go back to Mexico.”
With all of that time on her hands, she ought to read about the fallacy of sunk costs.
The vast majority of these asylum claims are found to be invalid. It is just another ploy by the open borders advocates to try to force our country to accept economic migrants by purposely overwhelming our resources and then claiming that the system is broken. I suggest a heavy fine plus a permanent ban on entering our country for all meritless asylum claims.
12
Our world leaders have created uncontrolled refugee camps all over the globe where people are forced to live in primitive situations lacking all modern convenience. The same types of camps and conditions occur in many, if not most, of our major cities in the United States. Instead of creating safe passage to new lives, or support for these damaged souls, we blame them for their poverty and displacement. In your imagination, you could not create a better environment for the spread of disease and violence. A price will be paid for our callous treatment of refugees, the poor, and infirm. Coronavirus may be the first of many payments.
2
Why would someone from Cuba want asylum, Bernie just said it is the most wonderful place.
13
The SCOTUS will surely rectify this awful ruling.
10
I hope it prevails. Migrants from other parts of Latin America speak the same language and share a similar cultural background. Stay in Mexico makes sense. Let their processing take place there in order to limit the burdens on the U.S. border crossing agents.
11
I could not be more opposed to Trump, but this decision should be stayed. The president conducts foreign affairs, and international treaties (e.g., on asylum) do not limit that constitutional power. There are many excellent reasons for the Executive Branch to negotiate a reasonable solution at the border that prevents a crisis inside the USA.
The DC Circuit Court's decision on a congressional committee's lawsuit over McGahn's subpoena is equally legitimate. The separation of powers simply doesn't permit it. It is difficult to understand why anyone would advocate the dismantling of the Constitution ... whether it is done by Trump or Trump opponents.
17
In the recently decided McGahn case reported on elsewhere in today's NYT, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recognized the need for courts and judges to avoid getting involved with political and policy disputes. These are not justiciable controversies. They need to be resolved through political means, through the ballot box, or through other means, but not in the courts. This might well be applied here as well. The constitution gives the president broad authority to shape and implement the immigration policy of the United States. Courts are not meant to second guess political matters, just the same way as courts decline to upset validly made business judgments under the long standing business judgment rule. Of course, under that rule the court may determine the validity of the business judgment, but, if the court finds it to be valid, it leaves it alone.
9
I think D’s would almost lock in a win if they stole from the R’s just one important issue, the immigration. D’s don’t need to do much at all, just address immigration in a reasonable way rather than act as if they were representing both Americans and illegal foreigners equally in the next elections.
Imagine that D’s would say that they will appropriate some funding for the existing borer wall by beefing it up with electronic surveillance, as well as building a new wall in some sensitive areas, to minimize illegal immigration. All the illegal’s who came into the US as children will get a chance to get US green cards, but those with criminal past will be removed.
D’s could also reinstate funding intended to help foreigners to obtain jobs in their own countries.
What would happen? A substantial chunk of (reasonable) R’s would find such a declaration appealing. These same R’s are surely reasonable to also see the Trump’s infantilism in his presidential conduct- in other words the D’s reasonable immigration plan would be likely enough for many Rs to switch the sides.
Now compare this to Sen. Sander’s view of giving medical coverage to illegal aliens, and perhaps even removing the border wall – this is his ideology rather than reason speaking.
If Trump manages to win in 2020, I will blame D’s for matching Trump’s infantilism with their own out of touch with reality ideologism!
27
@Grain of Sand moderate R here, if Sanders speaks his heart on unlimited illegal immigration, “a Koch brothers proposal,” he will win 2020 against Trump
1
Offering people in need medical care is not ideology.
It’s simple humanity.
Making it a political issue is barbaric.
1
@Grain of Sand
Bernie Sanders wants to reduce the crime of illegally crossing the border to the status of a misdemeanor. He promises to lower funding for ICE, and to issue an Executive Order that would protect the unauthorized from deportation unless they have been convicted of violent crimes.
He wants unauthorized migrants to be eligible for Medicare-for -All and for free college tuition.
He will tell Congress to offer the unauthorized a path to citizenship. Once they become legal immigrants, they will be able to bring in their spouses and children (including unmarried adult children). Those who become citizens may petition for their extended family members to join them. Most of the unauthorized are poorly educated Mexicans and Central Americans with relatives who also have little education.
These actions will encourage even more Mexicans, Central Americans, and others to move here without authorization.
9
They need the cheap labor to fill the chicken processing plants for example. Tough to make a profit with slow Americans that expect minimum wage.
We don't need any immigrants, really. I have nothing against people coming here but the only reason the republicans haven't stopped immigration totally is that they need the cheap labor. Immigrants don't complain much and illegal immigrants don't complain at all. If they don't let them across the border there will be fewer that become the illegal workers who are the most profitable.
15
Hopefully the STAY will remain in place and the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the US Government. Coronavirus is now on the west coast. Who is to say it hasn't been passed across the border? Just imagine if it spreads in a refugee camp. They should not be permitted to enter the USA, period.
28
There have been no cases of coronavirus in Mexico.
But there are some in the US.
It seems that Americans are potentially more dangerous than Mexicans.
2
@Jerry Engelbach There have been 2 confirmed cases in Mexico.
Oh the irony! Trump finally does something meaningful on immigration and the 9th circuit stops it. While doing so it hastens the Pandemic and lets in enough Christians to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Also, making moderate voters with common sense hold their nose and vote for Trump..because of the free for all at the border.
18
In no way does it “hasten the pandemic.”
Thank God for the Ninth Circuit.
4
First,
standards for asylum should be tightened to make clear
that there is asylum only from racial or ethnic or religious persecution by their own governments --
not from "domestic violence",
not from gang violence,
not from misogynistic cultural traditions,
not from "climate change",
and not from poverty.
Second,
there should not be any right to seek asylum in the USA after leaving their own country and traversing another county to come here.
Third,
They should be held in detention at the border until they actually prove their claim for asylum --
on grounds of religious or ethnic government persecution only.
And if they drag their kids along,
then they should all be held in detention together.
And if they send their kids alone on their own,
the kids also should be held in detention.
And if the Dems are squeamish about supposedly squalid detention facilities,
Dems need to step up and provide funding for whatever level of comfort they think is warranted.
And if Dems whine about "backlogs" in the "process",
Dems need to provide funding for enough judges and other personnel to speed up the process.'
And when the ultimate decision of the process is that there is no genuine claim for government religious or ethic persecution,
the "process" needs to lead straight to prompt deportation -
straight from detention.
No exceptions.
No intervening release to run free inside the USA while the "process" drags out.
No useless fig-leaf "alternatives to detention".
23
International law permits refugees to cross through multiple countries in order to see asylum in a specific place.
2
@sam finn very thoughtful ideas. Let's hope the thoughtful segments of the political class prevails. Then your ideas may have a chance to be incorporated into immigration policy.
First,
standards for asylum should be tightened to make clear
that there is asylum only from racial or ethnic or religious persecution by their own governments --
not from "domestic violence",
not from gang violence,
not from misogynistic cultural traditions,
not from "climate change",
and not from poverty.
Second,
there should not be any right to seek asylum in the USA after leaving their own country and traversing another county to come here.
Third,
They should be held in detention at the border until they actually prove their claim for asylum --
on grounds of religious or ethnic government persecution only.
Fourth,
if they drag their kids along,
then they should all be held in detention together.
And if they send their kids alone on their own,
the kids also should be held in detention.
And if the Dems are squeamish about supposedly squalid detention facilities,
Dems need to step up and provide funding for whatever level of comfort they think is warranted.
And if Dems whine about "backlogs" in the "process",
Dems need to provide funding for enough judges and other personnel to speed up the process.'
And when the ultimate decision of the process is that there is no genuine claim for government religious or ethic persecution,
the "process" needs to lead straight to prompt deportation -
straight from detention.
No exceptions.
No intervening release to run free inside the USA while the "process" drags out.
No useless fig-leaf "alternatives to detention".
9
Thank you for this reporting.
2
Does the 9th also think Turkey should open the floodgates and let the Syrians into Europe?
22
@Jack we exclude those who won't vote for a liberal
6
Supremes will back Trump.
We have a dictatorship.
8
@Fred We have a great American president!
Send all the Central American Refugees to the sanctuary Cities in California.
After all, look how well California has dealt with the homeless situation.
24
Ask the candidates if they will close the border to prevent Corona virus from entering through the Southern border. There is no way to quarantine thosewho enter the country illegally.
The virus is in Mexico already
18
@Bob the fact is United States had first corona case than Mexico. Likely US passed the virus to Mexico. Stephen Miller and his likes are blaming the sheep downstream for polluting the water.
5
@Bob "The virus" is in California already, and it didn't come from Mexico, and it didn't come with illegal entrants either. Same for New York, I betcha.
6
Hope this doesn't bolster support for DT.
4
@EM I am afraid it will, guaranteed .
2
I just returned from a border immersion program at the El Paso / Ciudad Jaurez communities and spent time talking to asylum seekers, documented immigrants, undocumented immigrants and local citizens. I also attended court hearings, listened to boarder patrol officers, and visited farms using migrant workers. Lastly, I had the opportunity to visit and speak with an organization that supplies care and relief in the US and another in Mexico for refugees. Until you've seen this tragedy first hand, you cannot provide a reliable opinion just based off your media intel. These are human beings, not "gamers" of the system. Fear based tactics divide. The El Paso region has always embraced the migrants and refugees, until the current administration made it ok to denegrate other humans.
14
@Paul Kunz the economy is growing, low cost labors from computer scientists to low level engineers are being brought in to slave out in US. There are low paying menial jobs are being created at the same time ... hard facts of growing economy. Give the jobs to immigrants, desperate and privilaged this is what America has been. Or stop advertizing " economy grew 500,000 last quarter etc.
2
@Paul Kunz
Amen. The weekend I spent in Matamoros a few months ago was horrifying.
3
@Paul Kunz
Most of the world is a mess by American standards.
But America cannot fix the problems of the whole world.
The immigrant wannabes want a better life.
But that does does not mean the USA must provide it.
15
Regardless of the politics and viewpoints, we cannot disregard the hundreds of men, women, and children who are living in the border camp fleeing severe violence and persecution from their home countries. They are not just "economic refugees." I work in this camp as a medical provider and have personally carried a young child who collapsed into my arms from severe dehydration and cared for a toddler with severe seizures. These innocent children are not criminals, they should not be treated as such. These are real people, with real needs. I've cared for a marine veteran who served for 20 years who was deported by our own government. They have no choice. Leaving this camp and "returning home" is a guaranteed death for many of them. We cannot forget our humanity. I also provide care in the US where many of my American patients are also homeless and impoverished. Human is human. Check out global-response.org/matamoros for more information.
8
@Bria Schurke
I am not aware of any nation in Central America that is in a state of civil war.
If it is safety from crime they were looking for, the southern states of Mexico have the same crime rates as Canada.
They bypassed those states to come to the violence prone parts of Northern Mexico for the simple reason that they are economic migrants seeking to enter the US
16
German immigrants fleeing Hitler were persecuted by various governments.
The wonderful novels of Erich Maria Remarque describe their sordid plight.
9
@David Henry
including the USA which had established its immigration policies in 1924. Despite the fact that the German quotas were not being filled, FDR and his henchmen were not allowing Germans who were Jewish -- what makes you Jewish anyway?? esp. if you don't practice that faith -- granted there are certain diseases assoc. with that genetic base -- anyway being Jewish is a slippery slope -- Jewish mother needed but not by everyone else.
The drug stuff must be stopped. Prison sentences of infinite duration for any and all involved. The government is at fault when there is no law and order. If you really want a job go to China, there are very few in the USA.
@Anna It's far more complex than "FDR and his henchmen ."
GOP isolationists wanted nothing to do with the turmoil in Europe.
@David Henry You cannot compare what Hiteer did with with illegal immigration. Hitler killed his own citizens.
2
The Supreme Court once said slavery was legal too. Was that right? Of course not! Sometimes the Supreme Court and the Constitution are just as wrong as the most evil of Trump’s policies.
So then, how do we respond? By doing what Harriet Tubman and other morally righteous activists did. We break the law. If the Supreme Court wants to stand by evil and stand between migrants and their God given right to cross our borders and live and work and avail themselves of public services here, then it’s up to those of us with morals and ethics to help them cross. Borders are inhumane. Not sharing our wealth is wrong. Excluding the other is indefensible. Restricting citizenship is racist. Fighting diversity and trying to preserve a white majority is fascist.
We all know this. But what are we doing about it?
Well, you heard it here folks. It’s time for an Underground Railroad 2.0 - a New Journey to Freedom. This railroad will be a bit different than the first though. Instead of hiding in the darkness, we can have caravans and mass protest at the borders. Instead of word of mouth, it will be supported by Slack and other digital channels. But the heroism and courage will be the same.
The time is now. When your great-great-great grandchildren look back on your legacy, won’t it be nice for them to know that you played a roll in history? That you were a hero of the Second Underground Railroad? Help the migrants!
8
@Ben
Your arguments collapsed just as soon as you invoked "god". A fantasy of a non-existent supernatural entity.
People apply for asylum under international law and conventions; to which America is a signatory. When Trump falls, a great many members of the administration could be asked to front the ICC at the Hague - not some "heavenly" tribunal.
3
@Phillip,
“God-given” is a figure of speech.
It does not connote divine guidance.
The majority of these comments do match the statistical data regarding attitudes toward asylum seekers. Therefore I find them suspect and wonder about bots.
4
Okay, Ninth Circuit. How about if they all wait for their hearings while wearing ankle monitoring bracelets in California's sanctuary cities?
11
@Snowball
How if they go wherever they want in the US while waiting for their cases to be heard? That happens to be the law.
4
@Fred
Hi Fred,
I'm interested in this part of the law you mention; despite my work within immigration law, I don't know about this particular nuance.
Could you please share a link to this? Or at least a citation to which section of USC this appears in? Naturally, I imagine it must be within Title 8. Section 1158 pertains exclusively to asylum law, and after hours heaped upon hours spent poring over this, I can't recall a mention of paroled asylum seekers having the liberty of willful relocation.
I'm eagerly awaiting your response, as this could change everything about how my agency works to sponsor paroled asylum seekers!
Warmly,
Julian
5
Why not people fleeing violence in India, Pakistan, Syria, Afghanistan?
why limit this to South Americans?
There are millions of poor and destitute people with a more legitimate claim to refugee status than many of these "refugees".
if we, bleeding heart liberals, "really" care about refugees, lets do the right thing and bring people in from overseas too.
14
@jack
Hi Jack,
I'm interested in your travels to and conversations with the people from all of these countries!
It's fascinating to think that someone could be as familiar with the world and its troubles while simultaneously signalling an unawareness of the extent to which geography plays a role in where a displaced person flees.
I do believe many people from the countries you mention seek asylum (a person with your erudition surely just slipped up and called these asylum seekers refugees--I know you know the difference!), but given their means and their locations, it makes sense that they would seek asylum in nations nearer to their homelands than the US.
As my experience and work within this system are limited more to people and places in Africa and Central America (again--surely you know, but just slipped up and called Central America South America!), I personally feel uncomfortable setting up a hierarchy of suffering! A man of your worldliness surely can relate.
Anyway, I know we are working within a limited amount of space here in NYT comment box land, but I'd love to hear more about all you've learned about transcontinental destitution.
4
@Julian
Believe the post @Jack suggested that Central America is not in a war.
The Syrians are certainly more in need of asylum that those to our south. The EU made a financial commitment to Turkey in exchange for accepting and bottling up the refugees. They currently have about 3.5 million.
Now, the Assad government with an assist from Russia, is bombing Idlib and people, including children, are being killed by indiscriminate attacks. Some have fled to caves and many are dying from the cold.
Now Erdoqan(?) has told EU he will stop the bottleneck and let the Syrians move on to Europe. Some migrants, already, who have heard this have headed out to the Greek Island of Lesbos already a cesspool about to blow up.
So, I think that is a little different than Mexico and Central American migrants.
5
Why don't the migrants apply for asylum in Mexico? It may be dangerous along the border, but much of Mexico is relatively safe.
The Mexican government has invited them to apply for asylum.
24
@ann
How do you know some of them haven't?
6
@ann from my conversations recently with asylum seekers from Central America in Juarez, most of them have family connections in the US, not in Mexico. Where would you go if you were fleeing your country? Probably to a country where you know somebody, makes the most sense. We asked them if people look for asylum in their neighboring countries, and there response was that many do, but they particularly had family connections in the US.
2
Simple...they don’t want asylum in Mexico, they want to come to the US. It has nothing to do with asylum and all to do with getting into the US.
11
The Remain In Mexico might seem harsh, but this nation cannot keep accepting unlimited numbers of Central Americans who are economic refugees. We have citizens who are unskilled whose wages have not increased in decades yet the cost of living surely has. We have citizens who are homeless, sleeping in tents in our largest cities, and in our small towns, so for them, things are pretty harsh. The choice is clear, this country needs to tend to its own. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country now, and we are still struggling to just get a handle our own border. Finally, President Trump got Mexico to do something and we're making some headway. Many immigrants are getting the message that you come here legally, or not at all. That's a fair deal for all. I suspect this very liberal district will be overturned, and I hope it is.
36
@GMT As I recall They were already 20 millions in the 90s. It may have by now doubled. I am a liberal and will vote for who ever will put an end to illegal immigration. I despise trump . Did not vote for him. I might seriously do it in the next election on this one issue alone.
3
@GMT
You understand that these are not economic refugees, right? Surely you do, as there is little uncertainty in the tone of your writing! You seem like someone who likes to get their facts straight.
It's amazing how one could write with such assurance, yet seem to have neglected a few of the basic facts about the topic.
Did you know that part of international asylum law (as established by the UN in 1948 and officially embraced by the US in 1951) literally states that it may be necessary to break national immigration laws in order to claim asylum--and that that's OK?? Crazy!
Millions of potential indentured servants yearning to get to work.
Let’s go. !!!
7
Every court ruling this week has been predictable based on which political party appointed the majority of judges. We were so much better off when presidents appointed more moderate judges that were widely respected in both parties.
The abortion issue and the resulting litmus test has caused much of this dysfunction. I just wish everyone could agree to disagree, let women and their doctors make these decisions and rely on the power of persuasion to make their case.
12
While making asylum seekers stay in Mexico seems harsh, this country cannot keep allowing massive numbers to sneak in or abuse on laws, either way. I am sure Trump will successfully appeal, as this court is pretty liberal. The TPP has been the only thing that has gotten a grip on illegal immigration. It has made Central Americans re think crossing the border, gotten a handle on people smugglers and restored a little order. Now if we can keep this and have real immigration reform, no amnesty, we might have an intelligent and fair immigration policy.
17
It had not done any of the things you mention.
Instead, it has created a humanitarian crisis on the Mexican side of the border, subjecting refugees to some of the same conditions they are fleeing.
A million Americans have retired to Mexico. This opinion will be quickly stayed pending review and overturned. Asking the government to release 97 unqualified asylees for every 100 into the US is arguably unsupportable. It might reduce individual suffering, which is laudable, but hard cases make bad law. Even that is speculative given the horrors attendant to the long journey north in pursuit of a mirage.
11
Stop quoting from Emma Lazarus’ poem on the Statue of Liberty! It was 1880...the industrial revolution...and the population of the United States was 50 Million.
We are now 350 Million. The Industrial Age is OVER, and it’s not coming back.
50
@Susanna
We do, however, have a large service economy in need of workers.
5
@Julie This problem wouldn't exist if we payed our workers decent wages. Now we have a population of mostly elementary educated people plus impoverished Americans dropped in favor of illegal aliens who are aggravating the plight of our own impoverished citizens.
1
@Julie
We have plenty of unemployed Americans. Ever been on a construction site where five people watch and two work?
Actually we have a shrinking service economy -- automatic check out and robots.to do all kinds of things.
Amazon has also knocked out stores where people used to get jobs. and few people have maids, cooks or housekeepers. To be a tutor you have to know something.
3
If it’s ok for the rest of the world to play games with US immigration law at the expense of US taxpayers, perhaps it’s time for US taxpayers to question their obligation.
39
It will get overturned. The law is clear, if not adhered to for a long time, the asylum seeker needs to seek asylum in the first country of entry after their escape and conduct all their requests and proceedings from there. A Somali escapes to Kenya, seeks asylum, is in a refugee camp, makes their case to US government, and if successful winds up in Minneapolis.
The Kenyans cannot just cannot him a one way ticket to JFK. Same was true with eastern block refugees in Austria or Italy after the war and during the cold war.
24
That is incorrect.
International law allows refugees to cross through as many countries as necessary in order to serk asylum.
Another 9th Circuit gift to the Trump administration. Just what America wants at the time of COVID-2019 spreading -- tens of thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands, of would-be residents coming across the border without real documentation, medical records, screening, or vetting.
32
@snowball,
On the contrary, the vetting is both strict and thorough.
Great, so now anybody and his brother is allowed to waltz over the border and stay here at great expense while we review and, usually, find his application for asylum unjustified?
This is the very definition of insanity.
Then, at the same time, an appeals court ruled that the courts can't enforce a Congressional subpoena of an administration official, in effect removing any oversight whatsoever of the executive branch.
That's the very definition of insanity too.
At least the courts are consistent -- they've gone completely and utterly insane.
34
The poetic aspect of this is it turns the table on so-called conservatives.
Consider many gun restrictions. They are often poorly written. As they work through the process or have a future implementation date, soon-to-be restricted guns fly off store shelves. Soon after, a court or future elected entity often neuters the restrictionresulting in more total guns in circulation than if nothing was done.
In many cases, government must move slowly and thoughtfully to achieve more than headlines.
1
The only real way to fix this problem is to fix the countries where these people are coming from. Until then blocking them like tRump does or having open borders like the democrats/progressives/socialists want us just kicking the can down the road.
6
@Ak
They are running from the problems caused by over-population such as not having enough food to eat and not having enough jobs for everyone.
They could gradually lower their populations if their Churches would not only allow them, but actually encourage them to use artificial means of birth control.
19
Now you're getting somewhere.
3
@Ak
You mean that the USA is supposed to be the "fixer"?
I say not.
The other countries need to "fix" themselves.
10
Ok, reading a lot of the comments, point me to one of the Democratic candidates who says "totally open borders, a million a month are fine" ?
9
Actually, Bernie Sanders has come close to that. I was a supporter, and then Bernie started sounding like Alexandra ocasio Cortez. He said he would ban ICE stop stopping people and, as he recently put it, we need to start re thinking what American means. that's pretty darn close.
16
@GMT
Presidents have too much power. This needs to change.
1
@GMT,
I would think that any decent-minded person would support reining in the ICE quasi-gestapo.
Of course, the legality of Remain in Mexico ought to be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The final decision ought not be made by a lower court.
In the meantime, lower courts should not be issuing orders preventing the national government from implementing national policy on a nationwide basis.
In any case, the law ought to be that persons claiming to be fleeing persecution ought to be required to make the claim in the first country they come to -- in this case, Mexico.
If Mexico finds itself burdened by overwhelming numbers of legitimate claimants, then the so-called "international community" -- particularly other Latin American countries --ought to step forward and share the burden.
It is absurd to claim that everyone in the world claiming supposed asylum has a right to make that claim in the USA.
If the current law says otherwise, then the law needs to be changed.
30
@sam finn
Sending people to a place where they have no support network and handing them a "please exploit me" sign to hold is not the answer to any question.
3
@Alan
So now, the supposed right to seek asylum from persecution has morphed into a right to go to wherever there is a supposed "support network"??
14
@sam finn
Frankly, yes.
If the same problems you are fleeing exist in the neighboring country, what's the point?
The goal isn't just to get someone out of a dangerous place--that's only halfway home. The idea of asylum is to protect people.
What is the source of this rampant mythology about USSC overturning 9th Circuit decisions?
Answer: President Trump.
The truth: The 9th Circuit's decisions are reviewed by USSC at a rate of 0.15%. That is, 15 cases are reviewed for every 10,000 decided. In this instance, the use of the overused phrase 'vast majority' of the 9th Circuit's cases are correctly decided, in the eyes of USSC.
Of those minuscule number of cases heard on appeal by USSC from all circuits, the average number of reversals is about 10 out of 10,000 (that is, 10 out of 15 cases actually considered by USSC). For decisions emanating from the 9th Circuit, the number is about 12 out of 10,000.
Those are the facts, ma'am. If you can look at those numbers and claim the 9th Circuit is 'wildly liberal', or 'skewed', then I really can't say what universe you live in. But it is certainly not this reality.
6
The Supreme Court has experience reversing decisions from the 9th Circuit. And it will here, too.
24
@PJ,
The SCOTUS has no more experience reversing ninth circuit decisions than it does with any other court.
Why do none of these articles on immigration at the southern border explain just how extensive our judiciary system is there? How many judges and courts do we act actually have? It sounds like judicial manpower is totally insufficient. What exactly is the US immigration policy, the written policy? This all sounds like the usual Trump incompetency that we’re so terribly used to these days. Tell me more when you have something real to say.
4
Manpower is sufficient for a normal border crossing. But when 100,000 plus per month were streaming across, unfettered, they could put every judge in every court in the US on border Asylum duty, and there wouldn't be enough judges and courts. I believe the actual plan was to overwhelm the courts and immigration system, claim asylum for everyone, and maybe they'd just let them all in. Can't do that. Wait until some of the illegal crossers get found with CoronaVirus. What then? Military action, that's what.
15
Once again the 9th Circus Court applies their skewed opinions and not the governing UN law requiring asylum seekers to go to the most adjacent nation for asylum. That definitely wouldn't be the US. Trump admin will appeal, and like in the other 83% of their decisions, the inept 9th circus will be overturned. Pathetic.
40
@Stacy,
Like so many other statements made by the right, that one too is a self-serving lie.
The UN and international law permit refugees to pass through as many countries as they wish in order to reach a destination for asylum.
If allowed into to wait for months or years IN the U.S. without any processing - they are not asylum seekers - they have been granted asylum carte blanc - Duh?
This is about maintaining a border - like every other country on earth.. The POTUS is supposed to maintain a border and an effective army to defend it.
If course the SCOTUS will rule in Trumps favor.
40
The right likes to cite “every other country on earth” when referring to border protection, but invokes American “exceptionalism” when presented with the superior healthcare and working class rights of other countries.
Approval is reserved by the right for measures that restrict and even harm, and withheld for those that actually help people.
appeal, appeal and get it to SC. Thats the new justice plan.
6
@Richard Head The “new” justice plan? Courts have been the weapon of choice by dems to rule and legislate for years.
5
@peter,
You must have been adleep during the cascade of right-wing decisions by the reactionary SCOTUS majority.
Surprise! The 9th Circuit strikes again. SCOTUS will - as they often do - overturn this as quickly as the administration can file for expedited review.
26
“Yoleydi Gonzalez Jimenez, 26, arrived from Cuba with her husband in the Mexican city of Matamoros in September and has been living in a tent encampment at the end of an international bridge into the United States ever since. With little access to public bathrooms, the camp smells of human waste.
Ms. Gonzalez Jimenez wears socks with her flip-flops to keep warm. A donated air mattress covered with pink and purple sheets fills the tent that has become the couple’s home. Their few possessions are stacked on top and become soaked with water that seeps inside when it rains.
‘I can’t give up after all the time I’ve been waiting here, even though I feel like I’m going to die,’ she said after her last court hearing in December.”
Huh, that’s weird. Because according to Bernie Sanders, her country - Cuba - is a fantastic place to live!
31
Bernie Sanders never said that Cuba was a wonderful place to live. What he did point out, very accurately, is that Castro started a literacy campaign so everyone would be able to read and write. His point was that the world is not black and white; some terrible things came about after the revolution, but the literacy program and the medical system were not among them.
5
@Mike
Uh, he praised Cuba's literacy program.
4
Well, Mike, since by your post I infer that you disagree with Sanders, why are you not welcoming refugees from Cuba?
You can’t have it both ways.
So asylum-seekers can enter the United States- anyone claiming asylum- skip out on the court hearing and they get to stay as long as they want?
46
And in many states you they can legally get a drivers license or do what most do...cruise the streets without it.
6
Surprise, surprise. The federal appellate court widely known as the 9th Circus has overturned two broadly legal and sensible ways of rationalizing the US approach to asylum claims. Fortunately, we have the Supreme Court to overturn 9th Circus nonsense, and it does so quite frequently.
Let's hope the 9th goes on a decision binge, just in time to remind moderate Americans how important it is to keep both the Presidency and Senate in Republican hands.
37
Eleanor couldn't have known what was coming down the pike for those democracies destroyed to ensure fortunes could be made on the sale of bananas and oil.
The reader, hereabouts, could try to show some concern, understanding the fate awaiting the peasantry forced to return to those former democracies , destroyed in the name of democracy since WWII.
7
@George Victor Oh, that economic exploitation started way before WWII, even before WWI. New Orleans bound ships stripped Honduras and Nicaragua of their lumber; then the United Fruit Company planted bananas, and ran the peasants off the land. Almost all the profits came to US companies and to a few elite families who all educated their children in Europe and the US. As for the birthrate, well we can thank Holy Mother Church for being so determined to keep women in their place, can't we?
1
The people seeking legal asylum have to meet two criteria. The first is, they need to apply to the first country they arrive at after leaving their own. The second criteria is they need to be prosecuted or be in danger, because of their race, religion, or political believes.
People fleeing from south of Mexico do not qualify. They are economic refugees. Refugees from Africa the Caribbean, and Asia trying to cross over from Mexico, also don’t qualify.
The Ninth Circuits Court should know better. What is so sad that they do...
47
@Marian,
It’s a rightwing lie that refugees have to apply in the first country they cross to.
The UN and international law do not require that at all.
A simple search on the internet confirms the truth.
Only a matter of time before the overtly and disgracefully partisan supreme court overturns this decision. I don't know why there are no protests outside the supreme court for its behaviour.
7
How about, instead, we have protests outside the uber liberal 9th Circuit Courthouse?
Multiple convincing arguments on different sides of this issue are illustrated in other comments, so I will simply juxtapose this current "controversy" with the most recent example of immigration within my family:
In the 1920s, when the Japanese Empire had conquered Korea into a vassal state, one of my great-grandpas emigrated to Hawaii (a territory at the time) to pick pineapples, sugar cane, and other labor-intensive tropical crops. He later married my great-grandma through a sort of hackneyed "mail-order bride" scheme, whereby he lied about his age, sending her a 20 year-old photo before she arrived from Korea.
These people weren't exactly high-skilled, highly educated students working at America's most prestigious universities. They were losers. 3-4 generations later, their descendants have earned PhDs, MDs, and worked for the federal government. I am grateful for the opportunity my ancestors found in this country, especially given how little "potential" they showed when they first arrived.
15
Different era. Back then we needed people and now we have too many.
1
@JimH No, we don't have too many people.
Actually we don't have enough people, and we have a falling birthrate. We need more people, but some people only want their "own kind" to come here.
@JimH
I'm curious about the factual basis for your comment that "back then" (ca. 1920) "we needed people" and now "we have too many".
Can you explain?
Climate change and other factors unrelated to immigration indicate that the entire globe already has "too many" people, and drastic changes in resource use and population growth is needed if the earth is to support human life in the future. Some scientists say the current global population (approx 7.5 billion) is already "too many," as the earth can only support 1.5 billion people at an American standard of living. But I don't think that is what you are talking about, is it?
The US is the country with the 3rd largest population in the world, ranking behind China, #1, and India, #2, though with a population of less than 350 million, its population is less than 1/3 of the top two. In fact, the US is not even among the 50 most densely populated countries in the world. It ranks #174, with an average population density of 91 per mile. (Higher, of course, in large cities, and much less dense elsewhere.) In contrast, Spain, frequently mentioned in these conversations as a country that "needs more people", ranks #118, average population density 239 per mile.
Many immigrants, though this varies by country or origin, are more highly skilled and educated than Americans, with higher percentages having completed high school, college, and professional degrees.
Again, in what respect does the US have "too many" people?
the supreme court will over turn this ruling
in month.
53
Who would have thought that an immigration policy that keeps people waiting outside the country doesn't make sense?
22
"Government lawyers may quickly move to reverse the decision, before border agents are once again overwhelmed by thousands of people who must now be processed and allowed into the United"
Is this what the people of the US want? If that is the case do not vote for Trump.
In separate news it looks like Turkey is going to allow migrants and refugees free reign to leave. Large numbers of Syrian refugees, Iraqis, Pakistanis and others are heading to the borders of Greece and Bulgaria.
A free-for-all for migrants with the country of their choice as the destination? Unsustainable.
41
@S Sm .
I for one will NOT vote for trump.
2
The funniest part of all this is I think pretty much everyone in the country would be happier if the Nation broke up into a bunch of smaller regional ones.
The ninth circuit can have the laws they want, other circuits can have the ones they want. It seems the libertarians and state's rights activists are going to get the last laugh.
11
Concoct a sad story. Win valuable prizes.
46
Well, this was to be expected and will likely go quickly to the Supreme Court to be settled in Donald’s favor. In this case I would not be opposed to the result, but I’m deeply stressed watching the Supreme Court become a reliable shill for Trump.
For too too long the immigration and asylum systems were lax, mostly under Republicans I might add, so I’m glad the brakes are finally being put on. We also need to find a solution to the over 20 million illegal immigrants currently here, most with citizen anchor babies. Any ideas?
24
@mltrueblood Yes, boot them from our borders, swiftly & with force
2
@mltrueblood,
The number is more like 11 million, and since they are not all adult women, most of them could not possibly have “anchor babies.”
@mltrueblood
The actual number of undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States is estimated to range from 10.5 million to 12 million, or approximately 3.2%–3.6% of the population. Immigrants from Mexico have recently, for the first time, fallen to less than half of the undocumented population.
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-many-undocumented-immigrants-are-in-the-united-states-and-who-are-they/
Also, if you understand the law, using the term "anchor baby" is little more than a slur. The US has birthright citizenship, so children born to undocumented immigrants ARE legal citizens: but the non-citizen parents of a US citizen can attain citizenship as "immediate relatives" only if that child is 21 years old.
https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/become-permanent-resident-through-citizen-child.html
We are seeing the splintering of the courts in America. Politics can no longer be kept out of the judiciary. It's unfortunate, but eventual. I'm not quite sure how to solve it per se, nor do I know if everyone sees it as a problem, but let me assure you it is. A splintered judiciary reduces confidence in the law, and that is a bad thing for everyone.
12
There are many people who falsely claim asylum to stay in the US. Take for example the earthquake in nepal few years ago. Even though some of Nepali's families were not living around the region of earthquake (They are from well off families from cities in Nepal who came for higher stuides in the US). They applied for asylum based on damages done in the earthquake. And they all got indefinite work permits to stay here. How does that work?
38
@Dean Just to be clear, they likely got TPS, not asylum. Disaster victims are not eligible for asylum.
3
And we all know that Temporary Protected Status means forever. In 25 years they will still be here.
13
The Mexicans are lovely people who believe in family values, and working hard to educate the next generation. I just don't understand these irrational actions against them by Mr Trump. We need their workers...even Mulvaney has said this. Our economy depends upon a growing population. The affluent Whites are having at most 2 children, and mostly 1. Many are opting to have none. Do the math folks. When 68% of our economy depends on consumers, we need more not less population.
11
@Sarah I call disinformation. The economy does not depend on population growth! Population growth is antithetical to the survival of homo sapiens, not that I care, personally, but truth is truth and we need to spread facts on the internet.
The "argument" that the economy depends on more and more consumers is also not the case. All those affluent white people who are not having kids are spending more, much more, per capita and breathing less air and driving fewer cars than more people or people with families who spread the spending over five people but take up five seats on the subway and eventually drive five cars killing us all sooner. So I also call disinformation on that one.
We need less people. Everywhere on earth. There aren't even going to be jobs in the future! Who is going to support the huge leisure class? Tech Giants say "throw them a thousand bucks a month". Sure. There isn't enough food or resources or space or jobs or anything to recommend enlarging any population anywhere on earth. Not to mention Mother Earth is finally putting her foot down and taking back all the space and resources she can from the grubby homo sapiens, white, or not white.
We do not need more people anywhere on earth for any reason and making money would be the bottom of the list of "non reasons."
14
@ck
You have spoken the obvious plainly and passionately.
I totally agree. Anyone who cares about the environment needs to push back on population growth and immigration.
It has become hard for me to respect those who refuse to conduct their lives in a responsible way by having too many children.
No one anywhere in the world should feel they have a right to more children than their replacement number. ...and definitely our tax laws should not offer incentives to more than 2 children.
I feel the same applies to overconsumption. We live on a finite planet and we need to act like it.
1
@ck,
That’s far from true.
The great majority of the world’s wealth is in the hands of pitifully few individuals, who manage to control most of the strings of government.
There are vast underdeveloped areas of the earth available to tap for resources, more than enough to sustain a far larger population.
The problem is with who wields the power.
1
It didn't take long to scroll down and find people ready to voice their "sympathy" for the long lines fleeing violence and repression, but even more quickly stating it's not our problem.
Sorry, that's not true. If in some alternative reality these were Scandinavians on our boarder escaping a disaster this debate wouldn't even be happening. As is, Mulvaney was impolitic enough to admit we need immigrants to support our economy. Legally, pragmatically, economically and morally there are strong cases to be made our current immigration laws don't work.
Lacking a Congress with the ability to address this honestly, debating legal versus illegal immigration is poor lip service to a principle that not only founded our country but is necessary for our future success. I understand that some wish they were more like you, but "white" is neither a skill or a prerequisite for good citizenship. Good luck with that.
12
@trudds - sorry - but we don't agree with you.
9
I am reading these comments about needing more immigrants. We ought to ensure wages go up first.
7
@trudds
Poor uneducated Scandinavians show up at the border, send them back to Mexico. This is not about race. This about capacity and fairness. Millions of my brethren will agree.
9
This will end up as a nothing burger that will eventually end at the Supreme Court. In the mean time the ACLU and some activist judges helped make the case to re-elect Trump.
43
Evidently, Trump who can't read or spell hasn't read The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
(UNHDR)
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Nowhere in Article 14 does it say "you have to remain in a nation who intends to persecute you." This simple fact shows the contempt of the Trump Administration and the lack of understanding of America's laws let alone International Law. It sounds like Trump needs to be tried for crimes against humanity under international law.
12
@Dennis eyerolls .... you left out the part that defines refugee must seek asylum in most adjacent safe nation. That's not the US! Next.
16
Dennis: apparently you are not aware that the United Nations does not govern the United States of America.
9
@William,
Yes, we are aware that only civilized countries adhere to international law.
It's shocking and, quite frankly, impressive how this president has worked so hard to overcome so many obstacles to sensible immigration reforms. No wonder all his predecessors have kicked this can down the road.
The asylum system is useless if it doesn't have any kind of filtering feature. It should not be a free pass to work and live in the US for several years.
Let's hope the president can prevail.
96
@AACNY
We certainly need to control our borders and eliminate illegal immigration, visa overstays, tourist births, etc.
....but, this self-serving president has only worked hard to stoke this issue to keep people wound up. He hasn't done anything for us. He's using us.
Send DJT back if you want him to control the Census, gerrymandering and the Courts.
Heck, send him back if you want him in charge of our welfare during a pandemic.
I don't ... and I won't let one issue be the reason for my vote. I hope no one else will either!
1
The people in discussion here seeking asylum are economic migrants and are not qualified. United States Immigration Law recognizes the right of asylum for individuals as specified under international and federal law. A specified number of "legally defined refugees" are admitted annually. These refugees are not eligible to apply for asylum from inside the U.S. and must apply for refugee status through the United Nations. Asylum seekers must establish that they fear persecution from the government in their home country. Or they must prove they would be persecuted on account of 1- race, 2- religion, 3- nationality, 4- political opinion, or 5- particular social group.
39
That is incorrect.
Refugees have the right to apply for asylum within a country, no matter how they get there.
There is no requirement that they apply through the UN.
If the right is so convinced of the validity if its position, why does it feel the need to lie?
This dictatorship of judges cannot last. This is entirely against the will of the people, and like in Europe, we will see revolution against this kind of oppression. The authority of these judges is very easy to overthrow, and it's not as if anyone actually respects their authority anyway.
34
The first thing to realize about the immigration issue is this; it's a really, really hard problem. Bumpersticker sloganeering can't solve it. Blaming on the political party you don't like won't solve it. Venting on social media won't solve it.
I would advocate for first upgrading the conditions on which these people live. This could be done jointly with Mexico, regardless of which side of the border they are kept on.
I see using the model of US military perimeter bases. Stake out territory and enclose it with barbed wire or electric fences. Guards monitor entry and exit. Authorized people are provided with some kind of temporary shelter, even if its tents.
Then you can actually protect them: you can keep cartels and gang recruiters and drug dealers out. Only authorized immigrants are allowed in.
Then you can administer to their needs. Set up a mess tent, and get them one or more meals a day. Bring in porta potties (by the hundreds if necessary). Install running water, at least a pump for every so many people that everyone has access clean water at least once a day
Set up a medical tent. Get their vaccinations and other basic health needs met. Transfer people out who are disease carriers or have severe medical problems to real hospitals elsewhere.
Even set up basic school tents for the kids.
If the camp holds 10,000, then that's what it is. No overcrowding.
It would be costly, and Mexico would have to bear a proper percentage of that cost.
Doing nothing is worse
4
Until all homeless, gang oppressed, or unemployed CITIZENS are taken care of here in America... it would be best for ALL CITIZENS to take care of our own first before we decide to help with the rest of the worlds oppressed. We need to clean our own room first.
34
One of the last gasps for the 9th Circuit. Once Trump is done with it five years from now it will be a conservative bastion.
24
@Sam About time!
1
If there is no "Stay in Mexico," then there is "Catch and Release." And the majority of those asylum claims are rejected anyway. This is essentially Open Borders.
34
@Eugene
You do know most actually do show up for their hearings. We have more people here that have overstayed their Visa and we do nothing about them.
6
@Fred That is wrong too!
Next step will be an appeal to SCOTUS where it will be reinstated. The 9th Circuit is packed with liberal socialists that interpret the law to fit their out of touch mindset. This is not a setback but rather a step in the process. McConnell and the Senate are diligently working to appoint new Federal judges, including to the 9th, that represent Americans and not Mexicans.
28
@William
McConnell, the GOP Senate and DJT are diligently working to represent Russia.
They care nothing about Americans or our system of government. Green is their favorite color.
1
SCOTUS will overturn this and Trump will be re-elected. He has my vote on the issue of illegal immigration alone.
33
@Olivia
He does not have miind. I will vote for any Democrat that runs against him.
9
@Olivia
Single issue voters is what has helped to create the mess we are in.
Would you select your spouse on the basis of one thing?
1
@Olivia,
I’m sure the re-election of an incipient fascist will do you far more damage than a bunch of poor refugees seeking humanitarian aid.
1
In September, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Ninth Circuit injunction, permitting it to take effect only California and Arizona. It will overturn the most recent injunction.
As the Department of Homeland Security points out on its website, “Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) addresses the inspection of aliens seeking to be admitted into the U.S. and provides specific procedures regarding the treatment of those not clearly entitled to admission, including those who apply for asylum. Section 235(b)(2)(C) provides that “in the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) from a foreign territory contiguous to the U.S.,” the Secretary of Homeland Security “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding under § 240” of the INA.”
The Migrant Protection Protocols have dramatically reduced the number illegal border crossings. In the past, hundreds of thousands of migrants crossed the border illegally and then applied for asylum even though they did not meet the criteria for asylum. They expected to be permitted to remain in the United States for years while their asylum applications were processed. The tsunami of asylum applicants overwhelmed Customs and Border Protection and clogged the asylum system. Now that they realize they will not be permitted to remain in the United States, migrants who do not meet the criteria for asylum have stopped coming.
22
The Ninth Circuit justices do not understand the law. Mexico offered asylum and temporary work permits to everyone passing through that country. Asylum law mandates that these alleged asylum seekers accept that offer. These justices have put their own ideology above the law. Ninety percent of these people have their case rejected. If we let them into the U.S., they will just lower working class wages and stick us with more anchor babies.
29
@Enough,
That’s untrue, as I have pointed out to other posters.
There is no mandate that refugees are forced to accept offers from the countries through which they pass, nor are they required to serk asylum in the first one they cross to.
OH, what a great day for Trump! What rousing talking points for his rallies!
This will drive Republicans to vote early and vote often.
Worst possible outcome for the Democrats who apparently can't get voters to the polls anyway with our delectable buffet of candidates.
Just unreal how Trump always has the wind at his back!
24
"Sweep the problem under the rug and kick the can down the road Trump", foiled again by the forces of law and our Constitution. Unfortunately he'll be back on the attack again until he is out of office,
2
Ah, the ninth circuit, always shooting to get that record of "most often over turned".
20
@Ted,
Nope.
Ninth circuit overturns are actually less than the national average.
Too bad tax payers $ is spent on this instead of judges not appointed by trump who chooses loyalty over experience and qualifications. This is just another inefficiency in this aministration. Even Republicans had a comprehensive immigration plan but I guess it was trashed since trump wants to run the country by hisself. We'll hafta wait until the Democrats get in there to once again clean up their mess.
4
Glorious court result.
3
@NOTATE REDMOND - enjoy it for the next week or so!
3
Must be allowed back in for cheap labor while their "court" date is processed.
4
The 9th Circus' opinions are overturned 80% of the time. I expect this opinion will as well.
22
@Nana,
The breadth of that lie leaves me almost speechless.
But not completely.
The Supreme Court only reviews about 0.15 percent of Ninth Circuit cases.
That’s fifteen one-hundreths of one percent. That’s just 15 cases out of every thousand.
And of those, sixty percent, or just eight, are overturned. Eight out of one thousand. And that is lower than the national average.
The difference between eight out of a thousand and your claim of eighty out of a hundred is a good measure of the immense universe that stands between Republicans and the truth.
" .. The Ninth Circuit ruled against the Trump administration," Shocking !! Even more striking was that all judges said, send those hungry folks to our homes in California, we will show them what America stands for !
10
politicized 9th district judges. hope they are out when djt wins resounding relection in november.
11
@jo
But the good thing is he will NOT win re-election
2
Just wait and see, Freddie
1
@Fred I wouldn't bet on it!
For those who wonder what a Democrat Supreme Court would be like, look no further than the 9th Circuit. Reason enough to vote Republican.
29
@cleo
Best reason to vote Democrat and I will be voting a straight Democrat ticket!
4
Another disgraceful episode in this nightmare of a republican administration. Most likely will be temporary because the autocratic, supplicant SCOTUS will inevitably agree with the cruel policies of a violent administration,
7
If any non-Progressive administration said the sun rises in the East, the Ninth Circuit would rule against them.
17
The Supreme Court overturns about eight out of every thousand cases from the Ninth Circuit.
That number is actually slightly lower than the national average it overturns from all district courts.
That makes the Ninth one of the most successful of all US courts.
Just maybe people “disappear” because if they don’t they will be sent back to the country they left to be murdered. Where is the trough where all those people feed? Is it taking low-wage labour that Americans won’t do? Is it being exploited because you can’t claim any rights because you will be reported and deported? Is it risking being separated from you children and risking them dying in cold cages, lying on the floor with no blanket and no medical care? You talk as if people seeking asylum are living a life of luxury and ease. People come because they want to work hard and support themselves. Mulvaney himself says the US needs immigrants so what is the problem?
8
@MJM Canada has recently taken many Syrian refugees, which I applaud. We should emulate your example; our behavior here is shameful IMO. But: Canada has not particularly welcomed those who have come over the US border and claimed refugee status in Canada. This is a complex issue and a refugee crisis, and real human lives are at stake. But Canada is not welcoming people from Central America or Haiti or beckoning them to come. Why not? The US "needs immigrants" as you quote Mulvaney as saying, but Canada needs only those who are well-educated?
5
@MJM - your reasoning is nonsense! Wages will go up if we don't flood the country with illegals. Then some citizens will indeed take the job! How about requiring work of those on the government dole?
6
Phony asylum cases are the moral outrage. These fake asylum seekers are exploiting loopholes in our legal system to our collective detriment. And some readers continue to cheer them on, as if encouraging more economic migrants to arrive in our overcrowded cities will improve our quality of life.
40
@Mmm
Will you please provide source citations for your statement that these are fake asylum seekers? Thank you! I find it's best policy to back up claims with valid sources. (Fox and the WH don't count as actual fact-based sources.)
3
Now can they do something about his "remain in the White House" effort?
1
Great timing. The 9th circuit wants to admit a flood of illegal immigrants just as the Corona virus is spreading. Brilliant.
24
@Paul Stenquist I suspect some of them have corona!
2
First of all 9th circuit court liberal judges: who is going to be responsible for checking out these thousands of aliens to make sure they have not contacted the Coronavirus? Under the current health disaster waiting to overtake our country , I hope trump closes down ALL southern borders. It is totally unfair to put this burden on our border patrol agents. Senator McConnell.., please appoint as many more conservative judges as possible in the next 6 months. Our country and democracy are depending on you. Get rid of every crying liberal serving on the Ninth circuit ASAP.
13
@Pvbeachbum Why only the southern borders?
Sure the open borders crowd is happy with this ruling.
19
@Lynn in DC They should be forced to take at least one illegal (with family) in their home and to pay for their living.
8
@Lynn in DC
Will you please identify "the open borders crowd"? And include a source citation? Thanks!
3
@Mary
Did you actually just call a person in a miserably, dangerous situation an “illegal”? As though they weren’t a living, breathing individual fellow human being just like yourself, with fears, hopes, needs, dreams, and aspirations for a safe future for themself and their children? Ouch.
3
You want to be convinced that Trump's immigration policy is entirely based on disfavoring certain races and religions? Look at the "visa-overstay" policy (link to article below).
Trump is targeting visa overstays from the 20 countries with the highest percentage of overstays. Almost every country on that list has either a non-white or non-Christian majority. Countries like Djibouti, Chad, and Nigeria.
But despite the high percentages of overstays, these countries don't actually have very many people overstaying their visas. Chad, for example, had only 165 overstays -- even though it was no. 2 on the "top 20" list.
But how about a predominantly white, Christian country like Canada? No, it's not targeted, even though it had **88,000** overstays. And that's only the Canadian overstays that came by ship or plane. It doesn't count the overstays who came by land, which is how most Canadians come to the US.
So the far larger numbers of Canadians are left alone, while visitors from Chad and Nigeria are targeted by Trump. Why is that? The facts speak for themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/nations-the-white-house-is-targeting-for-visa-overstay-rates-account-for-small-number-of-violators-omit-brazil-venezuela-china/2019/04/24/956ef970-65d7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html
7
@DC Reader So what! What do you have against Canadians?
1
It hasn't been a good week for the stable genius in the White House.
Time for a rally to lift the spirit! How about with bright red MAGA face masks for everyone? (Made in China)
5
Hooray for decency.
5
Time for the SCOTUS to reverse this.
17
Those liberal judges will get slapped down by the Supreme Court quickly again.
17
Gotta love the hypocrisy of immigrants not wanting new immigrants. Are you native American or African American. No? Then you're an immigrant and have benefited from immigration. No Democrat is asking for open borders but its not fair to change the rules all of a sudden just because there's too many brown people. Get over yourselves.
5
@AJ The hypocrisy is that you don't want to support them, but pass it on to the rest of us!
7
McConnell's revamping of the Ninth Circuit has, for now, fallen short of its Appeals section.
I am a first born American and US citizen. Unless you are Native American your family came to the US from somewhere. Whatever happened to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”?
9
US seems like a paradise for misuse of its naive and outdated immigration laws by mostly Latin American population. This will be a disaster for Democrats in the coming election.
18
Look for the fascist leaning conservatives on the Supreme Court to let Trump's illegal rule stand until it can be appealed.
4
OVERSTAYED Visas surpass illegal immigration and guess where those Visas come from? CANADA 😂😂😂 “Canadian visitors are generally granted a stay in the U.S. for up to six months at the time of entry. Requests to extend or adjust a stay must be made prior to expiry to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service.” Source; https://ca.usembassy.gov/visas/do-i-need-a-visa/
6
And medical migrants
5
Who wants to be the one to tell Trump that the judge who sided WITH him in this case has an Hispanic last name? Man, that's gonna scramble his brains.
4
@txasslm
Hispanic Judge, what are you implying?
We have a sovereign nation. Trump like me, and millions do not want people just showing up at our borders.
It is not a racial thing it a pragmatic/capacity issue.
We have no obligation to these people who wish to barge into the US.
20
@Frank
Applying for asylum is not "barging in".
3
@Frank,
You have a short memory.
Trump is on record for his viscious racist characterization of an Ametican judge who happened to have a Spanish last name.
In my view, the US should phase out the asylum program except for specific rare cases that have been fully thought out.
The problem is that the need is too large and the resources are too limited.
My grandparents and great grandparents immigrated from Europe. At the time there was a vast frontier. One of my early relatives homesteaded in Kansas. I remember visiting my grandfather's farm and looking out over miles of wheat field to infinity.
But the US has filled up. There is no frontier left. It makes no sense to "move West" when a few miles away is the Pacific Ocean.
Democrats castigate Trump for denying climate change. But what about Democratic denial of finiteness of resources?
Make no mistake. The residents of Guatemala City are suffering immensely. That's because the population of Guatemala has quadrupled since 1960. We can't solve that problem through immigration.
Meanwhile a few miles from my home are homeless encampments. I drive by them several times a week and wonder: Why do we allow more illegal immigrants in when we cannot house our own poor? It makes no sense.
The issues are complicated. They cannot be solved by activists marching with placards. The only viable solution is the election of moderate Democrats and Republicans that actually negotiate the details of policy.
It must be understood that the resulting policy will appear to nobody. But that is the essence of how democracy operates, through negotiation, not confrontation.
63
@Blaise Descartes
I see your point but I am not sure I agree with the statement "Why do we allow more illegal immigrants in when we cannot house our own poor?". In my opinion it is not that we cannot help our own poor, but that we do not want to. How much money is wasted by the government and military spending that could be directed to social causes and unburden many local towns and counties? With continuing cuts in social services and help to the less fortunate to ensure tax breaks to the wealthy and refusal to spend wisely, we are creating our own problems.
8
@Blaise Descartes I do not remotely think the US is filled up. Why start with that canard?
3
@Pillai - no canard - it is filled!
3
While it is very important to help those who truly need asylum and can't find another country such as Mexico for asylum, the system in the US has been abused with those seeking asylum released into the general population never to be seen again.
One of the reasons why Trump was elected is because both the President but also the Judiciary were legislating through activist programs. If this decision is not reversed by the entire 9th Circuit Court, it will surely be reversed by the Supreme Court.
Still, it is frustrating that judges feel that it is ok to break the law and undermine The President who is trying to fix a problem, only to eventually have The Supreme Court reverse the decision, affirming The President's executive order.
78
@David MD Well said. Agree.
5
@David MD Trump himself is legislating through executive orders and stacked courts. Moreover, he counts on "his" Supreme court's rubber stamping of cruel policy that he could never get through congress.
3
@David MD
If you think we had activist judges prior to T take another look at his slate of judges who are actively dismantling environmental, health, immigration law and policy and the power of Congress. Their message to us is that we can't do anything about it. They've got the courts, the presidency, and the Senate. Our hands are tied.
As for immigration, there's no excuse for treating immigrants like animals. This administration has been shamelessly increasing the suffering of those seeking asylum and those seeking to enter the US legally. You'd think we'd regressed to Jim Crow or pre-Civil War times based on the way we treat people of color in this country. I'm hoping that the rest of us will show the trumpers to the door in the next election.
5
I find it amazing how many people in the comments think it's perfectly reasonable to let Mexico take on the lion's share of the burden. If asylum seekers are such a drain on US resources, which is by most measures one of the richest countries in the world, how is a much poorer country such as Mexico supposed to deal with it? Or do you assume that everything south of the US border is all the same country?
This mentality can be seen in Europe as well, and it baffles the mind. If we claim to have a shared humanity, there is surely a more equitable way to divide the burden -- particularly since many of the rich countries who turn a blind eye became rich through exploitation of the countries people are fleeing from.
28
@rb These people aren't asylum seekers, they're economic migrants. Once it becomes clear they can't make it to the US, they'll go home and stop coming. Then Mexico won't have anything to worry about either.
14
@rb - I think Mexico receives much monetary and other support from the US to manage the surge of people. I guess in Germany you are happy to have large numbers of migrants, legal and non-documented. That is your right.
13
@rb
I think you will find that most Americans do not subscribe to the notion of a shared humanity, and that they never have. There has always been a clear nativist slant and a distrust of “the other”, our history is chock full of movements to limit immigration.
2
Good, more tents to take up residence here on Los Angeles' already tent covered sidewalks and underpasses.
49
@John Doe Where are the homeless from, Mexico?
@John Doe there, but for the grace of god, go you and i
5
@John Doe
Take them into your homes, feed, clothe and shelter them. We say we live in a Christian nation. When will we begin to practice our Christian values? These people have suffered enough. Show some humanity and compassion. They make the best citizens of all: far fewer crimes, harder work, and sheer drive motivate these immigrants to give their children better lives. And they make our communities better. This is the least we can do.
5
Once again the 9th Circuit tries to legislate from the bench and seeking to dictate to the President and the rest of the country about immigration policy that is almost entirely under the purview of the executive branch. The remain in Mexico policy has been a resounding success in reducing the huge number of people arriving at our border. What possible standing to these people have that outweigh the needs of law abiding citizens.
81
@Iconoclast Texan
"At issue in the case is a little-known provision of the 1996 federal immigration law allowing the American government to return some migrants to contiguous countries while their cases for entry into the United States are being processed. Lawyers for the Trump administration argued the provision could be applied to asylum seekers, and that the United States had fulfilled its legal duty to protect people fleeing persecution by conducting a screening to identify possible fears before it sends people back to Mexico.
They argued successfully in an earlier hearing that the policy had been a “vital tool” in slowing the flow of migration into the United States.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs countered that asylum seekers are exempt from the legal provision, and said the government’s fear screening was insufficient, pointing to cases of people who had been kidnapped or raped while they were waiting in Mexico and were told afterward by American authorities that their fear of residing in Mexico was not credible."
1
More good news!
More than 200,000 voters will remain on Wisconsin's rolls,
unless the state Supreme Court takes up the case and changes course.
A Wisconsin appeals court struck down an Ozaukee County judge's ruling that thousands of people had to be quickly removed from the state's voter rolls
17
@C J
Is your comment regarding ineligible voters?
So, Im sure we can all guess what trumps next move will be-give it to his cronies in the Supreme Court! He’s already trying to have Ginsberg and Sotomayor removed from important decision making. I’m sure Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas are deeply engrossed in trumps world and opinion! Scary how, in less than 4 years, this New York Bankruptcy Czar is slowly destroying a Constitution that’s been in place hundreds of years. PLEASE Democrat’s, work together and meet-in the middle. We do not need or want extremes in either direction-but we need him OUT!
25
At last (and at least), a little compassion to lubricate our stinginess....
15
I don't know why these liberal judges think they control immigration policy.
58
@Ed
How odd. Judges APPLY the law, and these judges have done just that. Why does that seem 'liberal' to you?
6
Fiannaly. I live in Mexico and I can tell you Trump's outlandish and cruel policies and not making friends on this side of the border.
11
@Manuela You should be supporting your southern neighbors who need help.
5
@JW,
As a long-time resident of Mexico I can attest that Mexicans are in general more generous than Americans.
The open borders crowd wins again. We may be headed for an economic meltdown, so lets bring in more uneducated poor people. Jeez.
50
@M
Liberals are NOT for open borders. STOP repeating that lie.
5
@M
Please define "the open borders crowd", and include source citations to back up your remarkable characterization of these imaginary people.
4
@M,
Most are far from uneducated. Mexico’s literacy rate is no different from that of the US.
And the motor skills and work ethic of Mexicans is superior to that of most Americans in comparable jobs.
1
What many of you are too ignorant to find out for yourself is the vast majority of “ illegals” arrive by airplane and overstay student or tourist visas. If the republicans wanted to stop Mexicans from coming in, they’d go after the employers, but that would be bad for business.
As a aside there are more Mexicans leaving the US than there are entering. It’s called economics.
28
@Paulie These are not Mexicans attempting to enter the U.S. - they are mostly Central Americans and others from Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.
7
@Enough Humans False, about half of those asylum-seekers I met while volunteering along the border were Mexican. That's why telling them to "apply for asylum in Mexico" is so absurd.
3
They will disappear into the US regardless of their court case and sanctuary city Democrats will fight their deportation. This is called open borders.
35
@M
If that happens, at least the crops will get harvested, the gardens of the wealthy will be maintained, and their homes cleaned, and the restaurants will have enough employees. What's the problem with all these people contributing to the economy and doing the work that Americans won't?
3
I agree that the shelters in Mexico are overrun but the solution is to make them safer and not to let people in the US. If there are loopholes in immigration there are billions who will come to the US.
The trouble is that Trump tends in the direction of cruelty and the Democrats in the direction of stupidity.
Does it matter which of them wins?
I don't want four more years of Trump but the (liberal) court in CA makes me feel that four more years of Trump might be the lesser of two evils.
25
@Ludwig i would rethink your last statement
2
It's great comparing the "NYT Picks" comments with the "Reader Picks" comments. It's enlightening. It explains why Trump won and why he will win again (to my greatest delight).
43
@GC The liberal media has an agenda. Can you guess what it is?
6
The Mexican Camp looks much better kept than the Camps in all the major West Coast US cities. The people are better off in Mexico camps than under a highway in LA with a bunch of mental patients.
20
A question I have not seen an answer to, or even often asked, is how many of the asylum seekers will actually show up for their court hearings if allowed into the US?
I would think that statistics on this should be available, at least for the pre-Trump era, and should be a cornerstone of the argument for or against letting them into the country while their applications wend their way thru the courts. The other thing that is not brought up is the necessity of quickly appointing more immigration judges so as to work on the backlog of cases.
14
@michaelscody https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/
@michaelscody So ask.
But ask the gov't, not us... ...
Office of Immigration and Naturalization.
Hope that helps.
1
@michaelscody Almost none. Next question?
3
Not sure why we don't just dismantle all judicial bodies under Don's Supreme Court of Lackeys.
Maybe we're hoping we can string things out long enough til we ring in a Dem president?
That'll get overturned too.
These are end times.
6
@Scott Montgomery
DJT would LOVE to dismantle all judicial bodies, and he could be judge, jury, and executioner.
2
@Howard,
I wish it were true.
But in fact money can buy a lot of happiness.
We don’t envy the rich. We just want to take back what they’ve stolen.
This is such a losing issue for the Democrats. Everyone knows they are economic migrants, abusing the generosity of our asylum laws, being coached on how to game the system, destroying documents to obfuscate the truth, disappearing and not attending court hearings. It's an expensive process, exacerbates poverty, burdens the schools and hospitals, and adds snouts to the welfare trough. The woke may insist upon ideological purity here, but it's going to cost them in November.
163
@Grunt could not have put it any clearer sir!!
Thank you.
26
@Grunt What a sad comment to make. It's not about republicans versus democrats. We have an internatioal obligation to grant political aslyum to those that qualify. Plain and simple. Plus we NEED migrants as our populations are both dwindling and aging. Under the past presidents, including a Democratice one, migrant crossings had actdually declined but the current administration policies have made more migrants come out of desperation that the border might end up being closed. No matter what you think, there are jobs out there that most americans do NOT want to do. And migrants take these jobs, pay taxes and contribute to the economy. They do a lot more than many US Citizens. We just paid big bucks for the President's son to visit his resort in Uruguay, why is that okay? The current administration's tax plan actually widened the gap between the rich and the poor so your comments about the costs are pointless.
15
I worked with students whose parents immigrated to the US. Every family I met had two hard working parents.
What is your experience that gives you such a bias against immigrant families?
8
Come on, Folks, lighten up! He's very busy being an epidemiologist and public health guru right now. Can't this WAIT? These folks will be hanging around in Limbo for years, their kids aren't going to remember them anyhow, so let's try to be a bit more sensitive to how overwrought the president is with the stock market tanking, and what will he say in rallies, reelection, the mouthy women on the Supreme Court, the impertinent CDC folks ...
18
How many of the 3 judge panel voted to block the policy, and who appointed them? Did I miss that info? This article has a lot of 'color' but not those important fact? Please, NYT, stay true to your mission.
23
@Steve I never understood how this policy was allowed to happen in the first place. If these desperate people are fleeing Mexico, register for asylum, and then have to return to Mexico where they are victimized again, how is that humane? Or practical? The prior administration hired more judges and case workers to adjudicate the cases. Trump did the opposite. He doesn't want to adjusticate any more cases. But Obama also deported millions. Unfortunately immigrantion is a tough nut to crack and when you have an administration that is full of 2nd and 3rd rate appointees, you end up here.
7
@Steve In a long-awaited decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to reinstate a block on the policy forcing migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to wait in Mexico while their cases play out. The court also ruled 3-0 to uphold a block on a rule seeking to bar asylum eligibility for migrants who cross the border between ports of entry.
2
@Steve Not only that, Steve, but the article neglected to mention where those judges went to high school and whom they took to the prom.
How did I know the court in question was the 9th circuit without going beyond the headline?
46
Most will not realize that the majority of asylum claims are judged as unfounded by judges. The system has been abused by economic refugees who exploited the system by arriving in the US, claiming asylum and then disappearing here. The Trump policy puts a stop to this loophole and I am disappointed the 9th Circus’ decision.
76
@Tyler Barkley OMG hasn't that article brought the 'Fox'es out of there Trump lair of isolation. There cries of anguish is pathetic and typical.
2
@Tyler Barkley In other words, you don't support upholding the law?
2
@Tyler Barkley That makes no sense. Under the past two presidents, migrant crossings had declined. Obama hired more judges and cases workers and deported those that didn’t qualify. Trump reduced this staff. That has made it worse. It is also inhumane to force people to wait in limbo on Mexico where they are victimized all over again.
3
"Lawyers for the Trump administration argued the provision [Sec. 345] could be applied to asylum seekers...."
The Ninth Circuit has never been a friend of the racists and bigots both in and out of government.
Traitor Trump's stooges at DOJ are an embarrassment to the country. It's so obvious they skipped ethics courses in law school. Just following orders with sophistry.
25
@george eliot The 9th Circuit has never been a friend of the law as written, only what they think it should be in San Francisco. There's a reason they're the most overturned circuit, and that's before Trump took over.
16
@george eliot
Rhetorical question: is there even anyone in the WH anymore who knows how to do the job they are being paid for??
2
Mexico allowed these Central Americans to cross its southern border and then travel across two thousand miles of it's territory. Why aren't they Mexico's problem instead of ours?
80
@Someone else
Perhaps they were, and Mexico couldn’t/wouldn’t take them? Not enough information here to form an opinion, right?
2
Th system looks weird .. the Judges in the appeals court follows law and Supreme Court quickly stays them !
5
Let them in! We need the help. We need the workers.
Immigration built this nation. Our birthrate is so low we are not replacing ourselves. Let them in!
After proper vetting for security risks, we should be welcoming people from all over the world. They will work hard, add to the nation's general prosperity - not hurt it. That has always been the case. This not a zero sum game.
Hey "Christians", get out your bibles. Be your brother's keeper. Show some humanity. Let's start acting like one species instead of a bunch of primitive tribes.
30
@Bob Bruce Anderson How exactly do you know these folks will all "work hard"? Our immigration system is broken and Congress refuses to fix it - they use is as a political football every 2 years...wake up!
7
Many come from dysfunctional countries. Will they bring that dysfunction here? They also tend to vote Democrat. No way we should be letting in more Democrat voters.
7
@Bob Bruce Anderson
I’m not Christian. All your religions are Harry Potter to me. We do not need more people. Population growth is a poor way to stimulate the economy, and of course cannot be done in perpetuity. Population growth must be heavily managed, with considerations for environmental stability and quality of life being major components of policy.
8
and then it will be appealed and the bought SCOTUS will appove it
3
Trump's war on brown folks continues as he still wants only blue eyed blondes with bucks coming into the country in other words folks like himself the narcissists dream come true emperor of the world for life.
13
THank god for the ACLU.
19
Here is the opinion.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/02/28/19-15716.pdf
2
That's awesome news for him!
He needs a few caravans to rage about and get his white base riled up again. It will be the perfect diversion to get away from the debacle of coronavirus and tanking DOW.
If Mexico can just hurry up and let the caravans start marching north tomorrow. Immediately, FIX News mouthpieces will start screaming about the real invading pandemic coming from Mexico.
13
Other news outlets report it was a 2 - 1 split decision. Who were the judges on the panel, and how did they vote? Why is this critical information not in the lead for this article?
15
This headline should read "Ninth Circuit re-elects president Trump."
66
So strange to see several of this article's comments just a few days after this article:
“We are desperate, desperate for more people,” Mr. Mulvaney told a crowd in England. “We are running out of people to fuel the economic growth.” He said the country needed “more immigrants” but wanted them in a “legal” fashion.
I have a feeling it's a color problem once again.
81
@Scott Montgomery Mulvaney wants immigrants to keep wages low and screw over low-income americans. Same reason the Koch brothers are in favor of open borders.
17
@Scott Montgomery
For sure the farmers and growers are desperate for workers.
3
@Scott Montgomery No, it’s a LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL problem. I do not know why everyone assumes it’s a race issue since it isn’t.
15
The Supreme Court will reverse. It will uphold everything Trump does. It will reverse every power court decision Trump doesn't like. The Court is part and parcel of the Republican National Committee.
10
@Bob
Or maybe it's because lower courts keep coming up with bad decisions...
11
@Bob Thank God, these liberal judges are out of control.
10
@Bob
As it should, the 9th circuit is the most reversed court for a reason.
13
We as a country have an obligation to help those fleeing persecution, violence and harm. If we are to have this policy we as a country should be ready to expedite this policy. We as a country can come up with billions for farmers hurt by tariffs, we can come up with billions to fight the flu, we can come up with billions and trillions to give poor corporations a break but we can't get it together to hire judges, paralegals, translators and others and give them the tech and facilities to expedite the process? These are real jobs created to help real people, I'm not quite sure what the hold up is. Perhaps Pence or Jarad can be in charge of this task which will help people on our own soil.
19
After reading AMERICAN DIRT by Jeanine Cummins, you can truly understand why this decision by the court is so important. Many Americans trust our country to be caring for migrants asking for asylum and the current administration has been a moral failure.
Marilyn Crawford
Mesa, Arizona
6
@lastcard jb
Upwards of 20 million already walked into the US illegally. We've done our share.
15
@lastcard jb These people aren't fleeing violence, they're fleeing for better jobs. They should get in line. Why should they get precedence over the poor in other countries just because they can take a bus to the border?
10
Reform of a system that is mired in bureaucratic red tape and leaves these people in makeshift camps that put them in as much risk as the violence they fled and leaves them there for months, sometimes years, is urgent.
Trump's solution to the immigration mess is punishment. He never fulfills his duty as president to solve problems responsibly—he responds with draconian measures that make them worse. A San Francisco court overturning this one is really going to set him off, but the immediate benefit to asylum seekers is that, at least temporarily, the policy has been overturned.
20
They will appeal it to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be a true test of how politicized the Court has become.
20
@dutchiris
More likely there will be an immediate stay of the ruling so nothing will change.
The policy isn't punishment. Fewer than 10% of claims are allowed because the people applying don't meet the criteria for asylum which are clearly defined. I can understand why people want to come to the US, mostly for economic or safety reasons, but those are not valid asylum claims. They are free to apply for normal immigration and wait their turn along with millions of other people.
26
Migrants. a diverse group in many ways, who also share ranges of commonalities are vulnerable if their leaving THERE is because of dangers to life, limb, psyches, states of being.
Trump, his endless harmful words and deeds, are not "vulnerable" to neither FACTS norTRUTHS.
His lack of vulnerability continues to be permitted, enabled and empowered by ordinary folk. All around.
And courts of law, at whatever levels, can't change this challenge to democracy. To its basic principles. Norms. Values. Ethics.
The courts will be packed. With "homogenized" viewpoints. Ideas. Beliefs.
"It can't happen here" is of little solace, as "fragments" ARE indeed occurring. Enabled. WE-THEY, with a complacent US and committed, active complicit violators of menschlichkeit.
4
The Trump policies have also created conditions just outside our southern border that might facilitate development of a CoVid-19 problem there.
I don't recall seeing reporting specifically focused on the situation those people face regarding access to health care, etc. It seems likely their access is poor.
The Trump policies are wrong-headed on many levels. On this specific point, they may also end up being self-harming.
11
@StatBoy
If people are waiting in Mexico, health care is the responsibility of the Mexican government. Of course the people in question are free to accept asylum in Mexico and then wouldn't need to wait at the border.
14
Mexico is a big country with many nice and safe areas where people from allover the world come to live. The country has been more than generous with offering work permits and visas to asylum seekers. The migrants are abusing a human trafficking loophole which is also feeding cartels along the border. They don't have to come to the dangerous US border area if safety is what they are after.
But they know that the US will release them once a credible threat is established on their cases, after which point it will become next to impossible to win the actual asylum case. So they will join the ranks of the undocumented underclass with no prospects of getting on the path to citizenship. That may sound great to those who want to keep prices of avocados low. But it will be more difficult to pay for free health care to about a million new undocumented migrants arriving per year if the Democratic candidates get their way (plus free college for all of them if Sanders gets his).
I'm very liberal on immigration and think that most of the millions of undocumented who are already here should get a change to redeem themselves and find a long path to citizenship. But this loophole is utterly unsustainable and will end up hurting everyone, illegal migrants, legal immigrants and citizens.
71
@natan,
First of all, they don’t get free healthcare in the US. They have more access to free healthcare in Mexico.
But in the US they have more chance to better their lives and support their families, in addition to more safety from violence.
The argument that we should take in these people because they suffer from gang violence and poverty makes no sense whatsoever. These are the arguments of immature people and people with alternative motives.
There are billion, with a B, of people with these same problems all over the world that would love to come her and to go to Europe, as well. We can't design a policy that allows all of them into the country. The country will be destroyed. Literally.
102
We’ve had illegal immigrants in the country for years and the country is not destroyed. So where’s the evidence for your argument?
20
@KP California is Exhibit A.
10
@Pat,
I must say that I never heard that unique argument: that it’s “immature” to help people to flee from poverty and violence.
Just how “mature” do you consider the egoistic baby in the White House?
I hate Trump as much as the next liberal, but the law requires these people to seek asylum in the first country they come to that's safe--That is Mexico. Not the United States. Furthermore, the vast majority of these people are economic migrants, not refugees. They're gaming the system, trying to gain economic advantage in the United States. The Trump administration is right about almost nothing, except for this.
190
@KC
Why is Mexico safe? "Because shelters in Mexico are scant and overrun, most of the migrants are living in vast tent encampments exposed to the elements, where powerful Mexican criminal cartels have moved in to exploit them." I would not feel safe under those conditions, would you?
116
@KC
In the case of those escaping to save their lives, I don’t see it as “gaming”. I also don’t regard seeking an opportunity to do honest hard work that a lot of Americans simply will not do, in order to feed one’s family, as “gaming”.
86
Last time I checked, there was no "law" or treaty agreed upon by the US and Mexico that required asylum in the first country. Secondly, people from Central America are escaping gang violence and retribution from corrupt government officials. that doesn't sound economic to me.
72
This is wonderful news to read! Thank goodness for the rule of law! Now children can be safe in loving homes of family and relatives .
We all pull each other up and we grow together
40
@Claudia How many of these people are you willing to house in your home whole the claims are processed. Please be specific.
11
A small speed bump in the road. The GOP leaning Supreme Court will overturn this decision for party loyalty.
7
I do not support the Trump immigration policy, but I have not heard a cogent answer from the Democratic candidates or Congressional leaders on how they would replace the current, clearly broken system. For this, Warren does not "have a plan" and Sanders simply panders through platitudes suggesting he favors unlimited immigration.
Most of the world now lives under authoritarian rule--China, Russia, India, much of Central and South America, much of Africa and the Middle East, etc. We can't admits tens of millions of people a year, but what fair rules do we set and how do we persuade authoritarian regimes to stop oppressing their people?
17
@DSM14 There are many ghost towns or nearly ghost towns all across the U.S. These people could be moved there and given the tools and supplies to restore them. They could live there with help for a few years while learning English. They would open businesses. They would be welcome in these dying towns, a breath of life.
2
@grmadragon
I wonder if we could help those suffering in these little ghost towns for several years.
...or move some from the inner cities or Appalachian regions and support them for several years while they get grounded.
Giving support systems to those here would be a far better use of taxpayer funds than using billions for an immigration system riddled with loopholes and insane rulings from judges who expanded social groups to include gang and domestic violence.
3
@grmadragon Your suggestion would only work if they were required to stay in the "ghost towns'--and how would you stop them from leaving the ghost towns?
I am sure this will get appealed to a higher court, until which time the remain in Mexico will be in effect. Jorge Ramos is probably jubilant but the orderly entry of migrants from central America into Mexico was accomplished by Mexico to the satisfaction of the Trump administration. . I don't think the Trump administration wants to prevent legal orderly immigration.
17
@Girish Kotwal Jorge Ramos has never been or is impossible to please from what I have seen and read.
6
@Girish Kotwal Seeking asylum is legal, orderly immigration.
Plus, it's pretty clear they're targeting the rest of "legal" immigration, too: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/politics/trump-border-legal-immigration.html
5
This is good, but we MUST have an immigration plan.....and until this happens there will be mistrust. We all know we must give and take, but let's get one on the table and if it's 70-95% ok let's go. However we must have one.
4
Congress would have to develop and pass a comprehensive immigration policy, and it's just too effective to leave it as is, as an instrument of fear and scapegoating, than to do the hard work and compromise needed to solve the problem.
5
Don't get excited about this. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is most always reversed in the Supreme Court.
33
@Norman
Mexico has been the enabler of the migration of Central American countries and so they should be required to sustain them while their claims are processed.
This is one that should be stayed. Better yet, the stay should be made permanent until Congress legislates a solution and not returned to the lower Court.
2
@Norman,
Get your facts right.
The ninth circuit is actually reversed less often than the national average — about eight cases in every thousand.
Look it up.
The decision will be over turned by the US Supreme Court.
22
I look forward to the en banc review and if necessary the Supreme Court.
10
Since the Supreme Court hardliners rubber stamp anything trumpian, one suspects this will not stand.
This is why one does not vote for an alternative candidate. The stakes are too high to allow that man to remain in office.
Will they vote 5-4 to allow a third term?
10
After practicing law in NYC for 25 years, I moved to Panamá. I read a heartbreaking story about a father and daughter who were separated by US authorities after traveling from Venezuela to Mexico via Panamá City. Panamá accepts asylum cases from Venezuela and the Northern Triangle. In addition a US asylum application can be made at the US Embassy in Panamá City. Either of these alternatives is infinitely better than Mexico. I hope this information helps some future travelers.
28
@Pat The case being reported on was about asylum.
3
@Pat You state that as truth, but you absolutely don't know that anymore than the rest of us. And you can tack more "vast"s in front of that claim and it won't be any truer. Again notice the generalizations, folks: vast, majority, etc.
3
@James Ricciardi
It's not about asylum. The vast, vast, majority are economic immigrants. They will not qualify for asylum in the US, but the liberal's plan and hope, is to overwhelm the courts with applications and force the government to let them free into our country b/c we can't provide them with "humane" holding camps. That's the plan.
16
It seems like our court system is far behind the current events of our time. It seems to take so long to get important issues, to get important decisions, argued, decided; let alone, appealed, re-argued, decided - anew, if the case.
Isn't there a way to fast-track important questions, as clearly important priority? There must be at least some wiggle room for improvement.
I realize that, "running out the clock," "wearing down your opposition by delay, by inaction," may be seen as an advantage one side or another, though, I think everyone looses if the clock, if inaction, become our way - or non-way..
5
@Dougls
There are provisions for a fast track review which will in all likelihood be employed in this case, with the result that the SCOTUS will reverse the Ninth Circuit...
9
While I usually enjoy and support the Ninth Circuit's rulings on this issue I think they're wrong and agree there an almost 100% probability that SCOTUS will overturn this ruling.
67
@Shane Why Shane, please, just saying - I think they are wrong! " really says nothing. Please explain your reasoning as the lawyers have explained theirs. We as a country have an obligation to help those fleeing persecution, violence and harm. If we are to have this policy we as a country should be ready to expedite this policy. We can come up with billions for farers hurt but tariffs, we can come up with billions to fight the flu, we can come up with billions and trillions to give poor corporations a break but we can't get it together to hire judges, paralegals , translators and others who could in a very short time- expedite the process?
6
@Shane care to share why you feel that way?
2
@Shane
I suspect you feel this way because, like millions of us out here believe, the asylum law was never meant to iclude gang and domestic violence as social groups.
This has allowed asylum law to be abused since that 2014 ruling.
...and for all the name callers out there, over my long lifetime, some of my best friends have been and are black.
4
The irony of the law by the administration to not allowing asylum seekers through the Mexican border in order to fight crime and criminals that originates on the other side of the border, strengthening the cartels' hold on organized crime and exploiting these vulnerable masses cannot escape anyone.
16
@kv
Maybe Mexico could fight crime on the border? It's not we haven't been asking them to for decades. And if persons accept asylum in Mexico they wouldn't need to stay at the border and could move to the better, safer parts.
7
Thank goodness for the sane, if slow moving, people on our courts.
Hang in there, a new administration is less than a year away and we'll have policies that represent the best of us, not the worst.
52
@Jeff S. You are wrong. Trump will be re-elected, the dems have nothing to offer
30
If the eventual Democratic nominee for president takes the position that America should re-open the Southern Border and allow asylum claimants to stay in the country while they wait for a judge to decide their case (the majority of which are denied) Trump will win the election.
I didn't vote for him and he's totally unqualified to be president but on this issue he's right
158
@John He is not right, the policy is against current US law. If he wants to change the law, do it in Congress.
20
@John
He is not right from a legal perspective, as the court decision clearly states.
He is also not right from an economic perspective. Immigrants are good for the economy and for a prosperous America.
And from a moral perspective, he is also not right. There is no widely accepted moral framework - religious or otherwise - that says "don't help people who are in danger if they are from a different country".
15
@Sarah
I like how liberals "care" about the law, but are willing to normalize millions of people whose first act in our country is to brake the law by entering it illegally.
36
I'm glad the courts ruled against trump's cruel Remain in Mexico policy. But I'm also concerned about the burden asylum seekers put on our immigration- court- and economic systems.
And while it's important to remain focused on developing and maintaining humane immigration policies, it seems there is not enough discussion as to WHY asylum seekers are fleeing their homelands in the first place. There is one obvious reason: the governments in those countries are either unable to control the cartels and gangs, or they are unwilling because they are corrupt and cooperating with them.
So two messages to all the trumpsters out there:
1. You will find that most of us "libs" support sound, reasonable immigration policies, and don't favor completely open borders.
2. Instead of demonizing immigrants and asylum seekers, demonize the governments that are forcing them to flee.
I wonder if the U.S. government demands that its Central- and South American trade partners treat their citizens humanely before signing trade deals. Looking at the way we trade with totalitarian China, I think not.
18
About two years ago the people seeking asylum seemed to
all start having the same story: Gangs terrorized their nation and if young men did not join their gangs they and their families would be killed.
It appeared that they had been "coached" in what to say when questioned by Border Security.
If life in their country was so bad why did they not seek asylum in
a neighboring country or Mexico, why did they come all the way to the US, when they could have gone to Chile, or Spain, or
Canada ?
The New York Times ran a story about a 19 year old from Latin
America who sought to enter the US so he could live with his
extended family and find work that would pay him far more than where he lived. That family spent over $ 20,000 to get him to America. He could have bought a ticket to be a tourist in Canada or Spain and then sought asylum, but he insisted on the US.
Another story was about a family from the Republic of Congo, who also sought asylum and somehow bought tickets to Brazil and made their way to Mexico where they presented themselves as being in need for Asylum and as soon as they were permitted into America they made their way to Maine where they hoped to sort things out before going to Washington, DC, where relatives assured them they could find work.
I suggest we send all those seeking Asylum either to Canada or Spain as both need immigrants.
89
@John Brown
Gaming the immigration and asylum laws is the key to getting to the US and it’s social welfare state. Most people know this and will do and spend whatever it takes to get here.
21
@John Brown Mick Mulvaney says we need immigrants here.
3
@txasslm
Well Mick does not, at least at the present,
have to worry about Trump replacing him with
an Un-Documented Immigrant.
The Elites want immigrants so they can have
economic slaves be their nannies, maids, gardeners.
Corporations want immigrants so they don't have to pay Union wages and don't have to worry about being sued for dangerous working conditions.
7
Perfect timing, am sure Trump could not be more pleased. The sight of tens of thousands of “asylum seekers” rushing the border will only remind every sane American why they can’t, despite so many reasons they would like to, vote for any of the open border Democratic alternatives.
117
@LA Realist
I hadn’t heard that any of the Democratic candidates were in favor of “open borders”. Do you mean like the European Union? We don’t even have an open border with Canada. I don’t understand what you mean by “open borders”, but it sounds like a trope intended to instill fear
33
@LA Realist
Please. For once. Could someone explain "open border Democrats" to me?
Which Democrats, running or not, have said "open the borders and let the people of all nations run freely into our country."
More FOX nuggets.
It's like the "do nothing Dems" trash Trump spews. The House has 400 bills languishing on your Moscow's Mule's desk (or dumpster more likely) but that's the Dems' fault?
Can you folks change the channel just once?
Get Real.
19
Sadly, we can be sure , the Republicans will make this so politically incorrect against all the do nothing Dems. 😞
1