Federal Judge Rules in Favor of Trump’s New Policy Banning Most Asylum-Seekers

[Deleted User 1186]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... ngton.html

A federal judge decided on Wednesday not to block the Trump administration’s latest restriction on asylum requests by migrants fleeing violence in their home countries.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly of D.C. upheld the administration’s proposed rule, which was challenged on July 16 in a lawsuit brought by several migrant advocacy groups. Under the new rule, asylum-seekers who pass through another country on their way to the U.S. will be denied entry here, unless they were already rejected for asylum in that third country.

[jas]

That should ease the numbers a bit.

[29again]

If they were denied asylum in, say, Mexico, why would they be good candidates for asylum HERE?

[Momto2boys973]

They’re not denied asylum in Mexico.

If they were denied asylum in, say, Mexico, why would they be good candidates for asylum HERE?

[Deleted User 276]

I'm surprised (a little seeing who the judge is) that this was upheld. I imagine that it will not survive appeal. It least I would hope. Guatemala and Mexico are not "safe third countries" and until/if we negotiate that, it shouldn't hold. It so disappointing but there is a least hope that the judge i the appeal will understand the rule of law.

[29again]

I thought it was clear that I was using hypotheticals. But regardless of which country denies asylum, why would that denial make them acceptable HERE in the States?

They’re not denied asylum in Mexico.

If they were denied asylum in, say, Mexico, why would they be good candidates for asylum HERE?

[Momto2boys973]

It’s not about being acceptable or not. It’s about Trump violating every international treaty the U.S has signed regarding asylum seekers.
What a “great” country, ready to tell the international community how they should act, passing treaties and then being the first ones to dismiss those treaties and those moral lessons. Is that what the self alleged “greatest country in the world” does? Talk the talk, accusing others of violating human rights, being a moral police on other nations, but then turning around and do just that when it’s convenient?

I thought it was clear that I was using hypotheticals. But regardless of which country denies asylum, why would that denial make them acceptable HERE in the States?

They’re not denied asylum in Mexico.

If they were denied asylum in, say, Mexico, why would they be good candidates for asylum HERE?

[29again]

I'm pretty sure that just wanting a (better) job is not a reason to claim asylum.

quote=Momto2boys973 post_id=501173 time=1564027445 user_id=489]
It’s not about being acceptable or not. It’s about Trump violating every international treaty the U.S has signed regarding asylum seekers.
What a “great” country, ready to tell the international community how they should act, passing treaties and then being the first ones to dismiss those treaties and those moral lessons. Is that what the self alleged “greatest country in the world” does? Talk the talk, accusing others of violating human rights, being a moral police on other nations, but then turning around and do just that when it’s convenient?

I thought it was clear that I was using hypotheticals. But regardless of which country denies asylum, why would that denial make them acceptable HERE in the States?

They’re not denied asylum in Mexico.

[/quote]

[Della]

I'm pretty sure that just wanting a (better) job is not a reason to claim asylum.

quote=Momto2boys973 post_id=501173 time=1564027445 user_id=489]
It’s not about being acceptable or not. It’s about Trump violating every international treaty the U.S has signed regarding asylum seekers.
What a “great” country, ready to tell the international community how they should act, passing treaties and then being the first ones to dismiss those treaties and those moral lessons. Is that what the self alleged “greatest country in the world” does? Talk the talk, accusing others of violating human rights, being a moral police on other nations, but then turning around and do just that when it’s convenient?

I thought it was clear that I was using hypotheticals. But regardless of which country denies asylum, why would that denial make them acceptable HERE in the States?

They’re not denied asylum in Mexico.

[/quote]

What does that have to do with what she said?

[jas]

I'm surprised (a little seeing who the judge is) that this was upheld. I imagine that it will not survive appeal. It least I would hope. Guatemala and Mexico are not "safe third countries" and until/if we negotiate that, it shouldn't hold. It so disappointing but there is a least hope that the judge i the appeal will understand the rule of law.

Actually, Mexico is perfectly fine depending on the area. Yahoo ran an article the other day about a family who had their sights set on the US but was forced to stay in Mexico. So he got a job, worked, saved and runs his own company now. Not everything has to be in the US.