Judge Stops Trump Asylum Ban As Migrant Caravan Nears

By Kevin Daley, 11-20-18, at The Daily Caller:

A federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Trump administration’s new asylum rules early Tuesday morning.

U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar said that Congress extended asylum eligibility to all comers, and the president may not impose contrary terms.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar’s decision reads. Tigar is an Obama appointee to the federal trial court in San Francisco.

President Donald Trump issued an order on Nov. 9 denying asylum for all foreign nationals who enter the country illegally for a 90-day period. The ACLU challenged the proclamation in court, arguing it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Federal law provides that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance” with applicable statutes.

That language is consistent with treaty obligations under the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the U.S. is a party.

Taken together, Tigar said that the refugee treaty and the plain language of the law indicate that Congress never meant to deny asylum claims from illegal aliens.

“Considering the text and structure of the statute, as well as the interpretive guide of the U.N. Protocol, reveals Congress’s unambiguous intent,” Tigar wrote. “The failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”

The decision may be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Trump administration argued that illegal aliens may retain the right to apply for asylum, but the government may use their unlawful entry as the basis for denying the request. Tigar acknowledged that the manner of arrival may play some role in assessing asylum pleas, but added that the administration’s position rendered federal law “a dead letter.”

The government elsewhere argued that many asylum applications are meritless, and pointed to other provisions of the INA that give the president broad power to regulate entry. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Trump’s travel ban was a legitimate exercise of presidential power under the INA in June.

“Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” said Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department. “As the Supreme Court affirmed this summer, Congress has given the President broad authority to limit or even stop the entry of aliens into this country. Further, asylum is a discretionary benefit given by the Executive Branch only when legal conditions are met and a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted.”

The TRO will remain in effect until Dec. 19. The overnight order followed arguments in the dispute just 12 hours prior.

“This ban is illegal, will put people’s lives in danger, and raises the alarm about President Trump’s disregard for separation of powers,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said after Tuesday’s decision. “There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry. Congress has been clear on this point for decades.”

The ruling comes as several thousand central American caravan migrants coalesced in Tijuana, Mexico, immediately adjacent to the U.S. border. Homeland security officials shut down the San Ysidro port of entry near San Diego Monday, fearing a border rush was imminent.



By now, most everyone has seen or heard that another Obama-appointed lefty judge has taken it upon himself to determine that thousands of illegal immigrants can enter our country and ask for asylum. This decision makes it glaringly apparent that they don’t give a tinker’s damn about this country, so long as they get to issue rulings that counter Trump.

There’s no way of knowing how this will turn out, and much of that will depend who’s on call in the 9th Circuit when this gets to them. There’s 15 judges in the 9th and Trump has appointed a couple of new ones, but it’s still full of old holdovers from Obama’s reign of terror. On top of that, he stated today that the 9th is a disgrace, so that probably didn’t help matters any.

If word of this gets to those groups helping the caravan, they could advise them to try and enter at places other than the ports of entry. Will they do that? My guess is yes, they will. Those illegals will be crawling like ants to every spot they can find to cross over into the US.

The ACLU attorney is an idiot to say we’re denying them rights – they don’t have rights and we ARE letting them apply for asylum.

This could be disastrous for our Border Patrol and others on the border right now. May God help them hold the line.


Categories: Political

Tags: , ,

16 replies

  1. There are 9000 more approaching us through Mexico.
    Rights? These people do not have our Constitutional rights. They are aliens.
    I am so sick of these lunatic elitist judges who only want to play political upsmanship and organizations like the ACLU who are America haters. Wish I knew how to rid ourselves of these people. We are so lost. does anyone know the Constitution?


    • Mexico should stop those from coming before they have a war on their hands between the Mexican citizens and the people in the caravan. Tijuana is already mad and deporting some that have broken laws, and the other towns may not be as helpful as they were to the first one.

      The ACLU and some of these judges need to go the way of the dinosaurs.


  2. Unfortunately, the judge was 100% correct on the law, which was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1994 and happily signed by Bill Clinton.


    • The judge may be correct about the law, but is Trump compelled to comply with the ruling? Trump’s ban on refugees was found constitutional, so why doesn’t that apply now? It’s basically the same thing. Asylum=refuge

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Per the Constitution, the Supreme Court is a branch of the government that is CO-EQUAL with the President, not superior. Certainly, no inferior court has status or authority equal to SCOTUS. Therefore I see no constitutional reason why the President, in this case Trump, is bound by any holding of any Court other than SCOTUS.

    Secondly, this phenomenon of District, or lower, courts issuing rulings with national effect is completely new. The only court with national jurisdiction is SCOTUS. Lower courts have jurisdiction within defined geographical boundaries, and their rulings only apply WITHIN those jurisdictional boundaries. In fact, that’s one of SCOTUS’s main functions: to settle conflicts between the rulings of the various Districts in order to assure uniformity of the application of law throughout the nation.

    With that in mind, barring a SCTOUS ruling, I maintain that Trump – or any President – can tell that lower court judge to stick it where the sun never shines.

    In fact, I have to stress that even SCOTUS is only co-equal to the President, not superior. A President doesn’t even have to obey a SCOTUS ruling. As a matter of further fact, we have an example of one President who refused to do so.

    In the case of Worcester v. Georgia SCOTUS handed down a ruling that Jackson chose to completely ignore. Though this resulted in the Trail of Tears tragedy, it did illustrate the principle that SCOTUS doesn’t have authority superior to the President.

    The bottom line is that Trump, or any President, can tell a court to pound sand. Of course, there could be political consequences if that court is SCOTUS. It could end up being a “constitutional crisis”. It would certainly be a constitutional conflict. But it may be one worth having, as the courts seem to have lost all sense of their rightful place in the scheme of things.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Great explanation and thank you for adding that, Brian. This is something that’s puzzled me every time one of these left-wing judges hands down such a backwards ruling. The question is, why don’t the very-smart-brained people in Trump’s admin, the DOJ and the DHS already know this? They should be making a statement to that effect to the people, instead of throwing their hands up in anger.

      The other thing I wonder about is how and when this has an effect on the actions of the Border Patrol. Do they immediately stop their limited asylum requests or carry on until SCOTUS rules on it? Since we didn’t elect the ACLU to run this country, I’d think they could continue as they were.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Should this not fall under the Invasion Laws of our Country

    The Migrants have exhibited violence force and physical attacks


    • No doubt it should, and right now I’d say the lefty judge, the ACLU, etc are accomplices. This thing is a ticking time bomb while they pat themselves on the back for getting one up on Trump. Idiocy knows no limits.


  5. As we fall further and further down the rabbit hole…..


  6. Our president seems to have an amazing ability to make judges who don’t want our country protected show their true characters.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: