BOOM: Federal Judge REFUSES to block new Trump restriction on asylum

A federal judge is refusing to block Trump from enforcing a new restriction on asylum that forces migrants to apply for asylum in a country they are passing through before they get to the US:

AP – A federal judge says the Trump administration can enforce its new restrictions on asylum for people crossing the U.S.-Mexico border while lawsuits challenging the policy play out.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly in Washington has refused to grant a temporary restraining order. Another hearing on a similar suit is scheduled later Wednesday in California.

Kelly says the immigrant advocacy groups that sued didn’t prove that their work would be “irreparably harmed” if the policy went into effect.

The proposal prevents most migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S. if they passed through another country first.



Well this is a rare victory for Trump so early in a lawsuit.

But don’t get too cozy. The rule was also challenged in San Francisco and the federal judge there has a history of blocking Trump policies. That ruling will come later today.

In case you are wondering, Kelly was appointed by Trump and confirmed in 2017. The federal judge in San Francisco, Judge Tigar, who will rule later today, was an Obama appointee.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

24 thoughts on “BOOM: Federal Judge REFUSES to block new Trump restriction on asylum

  1. I always thought that was the law. That an individual had to declare asylum in the first country they reached……

  2. Yoohoo!!! We won one…they only have 869 other judges to shop around for a restraining order.

    BTW, what has the administration done about pulling the choker chain on bureaucrats in federal agencies that are deliberately undermining our immigration policy?

    Who locked open all the barrier gates in El Paso as shown on video?

    The IBWC says they only owned/had authority to open the one gate, and the scores of other gates opened are controlled by other federal executive agencies?

    Speaking of the IBWC, has the administration pulled their chain yet?

  3. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/23/2019-15710/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal
    2002, The statute provides that the Secretary may apply (by designation) expedited removal to any alien “who has not been admitted or paroled into the United States, and who has not affirmatively shown, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer, that the alien has been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of the determination of inadmissibility. . . .” INA section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II). In other words, Congress provided the Secretary, in his sole and unreviewable discretion, the authority to apply expedited removal to aliens inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), who had not been admitted or paroled and who could not prove that they have been continuously present in the United States for two years.
    In 2004, the Secretary designated additional aliens for expedited removal through a Federal Register notice, pursuant to which DHS officials could apply expedited removal to aliens encountered within 100 air miles of the border and within 14 days of their date of entry regardless of the alien’s method of arrival, as long as the other conditions for expedited removal were satisfied…
    …the 2004 Notice did not implement “the full nationwide expedited removal authority available to DHS.” It did, however, expressly reserve to DHS the option of “implementing the full nationwide enforcement authority of the statute through publication of a subsequent Federal Register notice.”

  4. On these suits against the Trump administration about all you need to know on the rulings are if they are an Obama appointed judge or not.

  5. They are not immigrant advocacy group. They are America hating anti immigrant pro open border, pro illegal immigration groups!

  6. In answer to several questions below: Because we are becoming a lawless society, on the verge of collapse…

  7. FINALLY! After today and Mueller’s “testimony” and the Republican members ripping him apart, it might start waking up these activist judges. Perhaps they can now picture themselves in front of a committee trying to explain how they are not using LAW to make their decisions.

  8. “But don’t get too cozy. The rule was also challenged in San Francisco and the federal judge there has a history of blocking Trump policies. That ruling will come later today.”

    Give it time, the same case is judge shopped to multiple courts most likely. The judicial system is broken.

  9. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Andrew Jackson
    Time for Trump to pull a Jackson and advise the same to any judge who rules against his Executive Branch rights. Then call for impeachment of the judge.

  10. Not so fast.
    Another day, another corrupt Obama judge legislating from the bench.
    San Francisco judge blocks immigration order.

Comments are closed.