Law Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of Trump asylum rule

And the Supremes smacked that judge down today.
 
Teppodama said:
And the Supremes smacked that judge down today.
Click to expand...

I think you guys should just stick to reading the headlines and worshipping your deal leader, rather than trying to provide any type of analysis of court decisions.

You guys are celebrating the reversal of a preliminary injunction as if the case is decided and over.
 
8u76.jpg




<{MingNope}>
 
Beastman09 said:
I think you guys should just stick to reading the headlines and worshipping your deal leader, rather than trying to provide any type of analysis of court decisions.

You guys are celebrating the reversal of a preliminary injunction as if the case is decided and over.
Click to expand...

You seem uniquely interested in commenting on legal matters. Hit me with some of your “analysis of court decisions.” I would love to know what a legal scholar like you thinks about this single paragraph order. Please, do a deep dive.

It’s just funny that you’re here accusing others of “just reading the headlines,” but you called it a “reversal of a preliminary injunction.” I thought we were talking about a stay of nationwide enforcement of the preliminary injunction, and not a reversal.
 
Beastman09 said:
I think you guys should just stick to reading the headlines and worshipping your deal leader, rather than trying to provide any type of analysis of court decisions.

You guys are celebrating the reversal of a preliminary injunction as if the case is decided and over.
Click to expand...
I actually have no real opinion on their decision. I was merely commenting that things had changed from the original post.

If I were to make a comment regarding the decision it would be that I'm fine with the current outcome. Regardless of the issue at hand I don't believe it's the place of a single judge at his level to makes judgements that effect the entire country or its policies.
 
https://www.apnews.com/a817cf3affb04f3d8ad3c4940366a5fe

Good. Now lower Federal judges can stop trying to overrule it because they want to. Watch one try tho. The ruling makes sense, the solution to the world's problems isn't to say anyone from a less well off area that can simply get to America gets to stay here as an asylum seeker. That's not sustainable. The rules still allow those who do need safe haven or protection in America to seek it, and allo for negotiations between the US and other countries about how many the US will take even if refugees did pass through a country like Mexico. This simply stops the lone goal of being getting to the US, rather than getting to safety. Asylum seekers who sought asylum in another country and were rejected are still welcome to apply here at the US even if they passed through a dozen other countries. They just have to try at one country along the way.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high court action allows the Republican administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Asylum seekers must pass an initial screening called a “credible fear” interview, a hurdle that a vast majority clear. Under the new policy, they would fail the test unless they sought asylum in at least one country they traveled through and were denied.
 
Agent: "did you seek asylum somewhere prior"

Asylum seeker: "yes, here are my papers and the proof I was denied elsewhere"

Agent: "fakes news, *holds up special 'Trump swatch' to test for honesty...too brown, yeah, fake news"
 
andnowweknow said:
Agent: "did you seek asylum somewhere prior"

Asylum seeker: "yes, here are my papers and the proof I was denied elsewhere"

Agent: "fakes news, *holds up special 'Trump swatch' to test for honesty...too brown, yeah, fake news"
Click to expand...

resources
 
andnowweknow said:
Agent: "did you seek asylum somewhere prior"

Asylum seeker: "yes, here are my papers and the proof I was denied elsewhere"

Agent: "fakes news, *holds up special 'Trump swatch' to test for honesty...too brown, yeah, fake news"
Click to expand...
<Huh2>
 
Asylum isn't for people who just feel like living in America. Its has very specific requirements which most of these "asylum seekers" don't meet.
 
@second sight , WHY HAVEN'T YOU UPDATED THE THREAD TITLE?

If anything, it's the Supreme Court giving the Federal Judge not only the Middle Finger but they collectively turned around, pulled down their pants(robes) and mooned him. <Baelish01>
 
How fucked up is Mexico that people walk across it from another continent to get somewhere else
 
Also we should just bus al those folks up to Canada and drop them off at their border
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PBAC
Law Irish court issues ruling that Britain is not a safe country
Replies
15
Views
619
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP
KBE6EKCTAH_CCP

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,879
Messages
55,451,668
Members
174,783
Latest member
notnormal

Share this page

Back
Top