Administration proposes new Asylum Rules
[Headline from DRJ]
Trump to end asylum protections for Central American migrants at US-Mexico border:
The Trump administration is moving to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants, the Department of Justice announced Monday.
According to a new rule published in the Federal Register, asylum seekers who pass through another country before reaching the U.S. will be ineligible for asylum when they reach the southern border.
Under the rule, those who have been the victims of trafficking are granted exceptions. The rule also allows exceptions for migrants passing through countries that have not signed major international refugee treaties and for migrants who have been denied asylum in the countries they traveled through.
ADDED: More at Sara Carter’s blog on today’s Stricter Asylum Rules: Immigrants Must Apply In First Safe Country They Enter, including:
“The rule’s bar on asylum eligibility for aliens who fail to apply for protection in at least one third country through which they transit en route to the United States also aims to further the humanitarian purposes of asylum,” Barr stated in Monday’s decision. “It prioritizes individuals who are unable to obtain protection from persecution elsewhere and individuals who are victims of a “severe form of trafficking in persons” as defined by 8 CFR 214.11, many of whom do not volitionally transit through a third country to reach the United States.”
This makes sense and can be defended in court.
I hope Trump doesn’t say anything about this change that bolsters the inevitable court cases. Keep talking about The Squad.DRJ (15874d) — 7/15/2019 @ 6:33 am
He should have done this on January 21, 2017. Also, revoking the Obama rule that allows requests for asylum on the grounds that the applicant is subject to discrimination in their home country for being gay or “transgender”.* In full accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, so it would pass judicial muster. But then, his base would not be riled up right now, if only just enough to discourage potential primary challengers, would it?
*”Hey, amigo, you say you want to go to El Norte? Just put on this dress.”nk (dbc370) — 7/15/2019 @ 6:45 am
And I hope I will wake up with Trump’s billion dollars. I think I have a better shot.Appalled (d07ae6) — 7/15/2019 @ 6:46 am
I added a link to Sara Carter’s blog.DRJ (15874d) — 7/15/2019 @ 7:20 am
It appears Barr has used Trump’s need for approval to ingratiate himself into Trump’s circle. Has Barr done that to get power for himself, or to try to bring a measure of intelligence and consistency to Trump’s actions? The jury is still out but I hope the latter.DRJ (15874d) — 7/15/2019 @ 7:33 am
So Trump’s position going forward will be that Mexico is “safe”?Dave (1bb933) — 7/15/2019 @ 7:51 am
Immigration Law, such as it is, has been enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner since the current law was amended in the Reagan era. Part of that is the numbers of people coming to the US and asserting a right to asylum has overwhelmed the system. It isn’t just people from El Salvador and Honduras.
The only way we will get a fair immigration law that is respected by anyone is to develop one that can actually be enforced. Despite the fact we are in the Trump Administration, this seems like a resonable administrative step towards that goal.Appalled (d07ae6) — 7/15/2019 @ 8:31 am
One, the move is probably unlawful, so a court will likely kibosh it. Two, Sara Carter is the Greg Palast of the right, a hyperpartisan masquerading as an “investigative journalist”.Paul Montagu (fc91e5) — 7/15/2019 @ 9:18 am
I agree Sara Carter has an agenda. I try to find neutral links/opinions but I linked her blog today because she had the text of Barr’s statement, something I wasn’t able to find online earlier when I posted this.
As for the legality of the change in the asylum rules, they have been posted in the Federal Register and do not require the legality of the Safe Third Country (STC) program, which is the subject of my reading of your link. (They will work better if the STC program is legal but the STC program is not required.) And we have a SCOTUS and Chief Justice that like incremental changes in the law. This fits.DRJ (15874d) — 7/15/2019 @ 9:47 am
True, but this should be handled by legislation.
A president fit to hold the office could explain the flaws of the existing law in a clear and non-emotional/non-threatening way, explaining how the people trying to game the system are preventing us from properly dealing with the much smaller number of people who have legitimate claims.
A sane approach would completely uncut the Democrats and expose the cynicism and lawlessness of their position and it would move the needle of public opinion in the right direction. There is no way you could lose on this issue, if handled without irrational, racist rhetoric. But Trump is incapable of (and uninterested in) persuading anyone who doesn’t already buy his con.
If the Democrats won’t compromise (and compromise would have to involve offering them concessions on something, for instance DACA) then fight the next election over a clearly delineated policy question.Dave (1bb933) — 7/15/2019 @ 11:36 am
The immigration system we have now is not the one established by legislation. (Otherwise, we would not have so many “undocumented” aliens in this country.) If we tried to enforce that law, things would get ugly real fast. Matter of fact, I thought Trump would have tried to exploit that easy fact by now to force some kind of deal. Instead, he seems to just revel in cruelty, and by being that way, play into the hands of the permanent amnesty crowd.Appalled (d07ae6) — 7/15/2019 @ 12:34 pm
The law is being enforced.
According to statistics published by the Trump administration, something like 80% of illegal crossing attempts between points of entry are stopped (and have been for close to a decade). In some sectors, it’s 90% or higher.
What other crimes have an enforcement success rate that high?
According to national statistics from the FBI, barely over 60% of murders are solved or “cleared”. For every other type of crime, it’s much lower:
Aggravated Assault: 53.3%
Motor vehicle theft: 13.7%
An ~80% rate of stopping illegal crossings between ports of entry doesn’t look so bad in comparison to those numbers, does it?
The problem isn’t lack or ineffectiveness of enforcement, it’s the sheer number of attempts.Dave (1bb933) — 7/15/2019 @ 12:53 pm