Federal Judge BLOCKS Trump asylum rule

As predicted, a federal judge in San Francisco blocked Trump’s asylum rule from going into effect:

REUTERS – U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rule, which would require asylum-seekers to first pursue safe haven in a third country they had traveled through on their way to the United States.

The decision makes inconsequential a ruling by Washington D.C. District Judge Timothy Kelly earlier in the day that declined to block the rule in a different lawsuit brought by immigration advocacy groups, lawyers said.

The Trump administration had been quick to celebrate that decision, saying it would discourage abuse of the asylum process.

Following the action by the San Francisco court, the rule will now be suspended pending further proceedings.

I remember the good old days when someone would just file one lawsuit and that would be it.

Nowadays, they file multiple lawsuits in different districts in order to find a judge who will do their bidding.

As we told you yesterday, Judge Tigar is 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.

161 thoughts on “Federal Judge BLOCKS Trump asylum rule

  1. Maybe Judge Tigar can offer some rooms at his home or backyard or both. He seems so nice and friendly to those barging in.

  2. So sick & tired of these friggin so-called judges blocking everything our president is trying to do.

    1. As Daniel Horowitz explains the San Fran judge has no way to enforce it and Trump needs to listen to the D.C. ruling.

      1. Using an ex-democratic president to justify his actions would be a bit of irony, if not amusing.

  3. I don’t understand why one district judge overrules another. So glad I didn’t go into law. I would have been a flunky.

  4. It’s time Trump pulled an Andrew Jackson and start ignoring these pinhead Bolshevik judges. The Executive Branch is a “co equal” branch of government, the Judicial Branch is not an extra constitutional branch with the “last word” on everything. Allowing one “unelected” judge the power to shut down anything he dislikes is tyranny in its purest form. Ignore them!!

    Perhaps if Trump started ignoring these unconstitutional rulings, the House of Representatives would step in and do what they are constitutionally authorized to do regarding the judicial branch. They can set the numbers, places, etc. of federal courts, and they can “OVER RULE” any judgement rendered by any court, including the Supreme Court. Tyranny has come to this nation clothed in a black robe. Disobey, disobey, disobey!!!

    1. I agree with you @rwrad:disqus but we know he won’t. It’s all a big game to them in the DC Swamp and every man and woman for ourselves out here in the real world. This isn’t going to end well.

  5. What a catch-22 circle of hell we live in. People that none of us elected get to shoot down decisions of people that are elected.

    1. The problem is they’re convinced the figurative shooting you mention won’t turn into literal shooting if they keep this up.

      Government always wants to walk the fine line between getting away with all their little schemes, and the people rising up and shooting them all.

  6. Sorry Justice John Roberts but we do have Trump and Obama appointed justices and this gets proven time after time.

  7. If one federal judge can out rule another when does it stop? It’s like this back and fourth game that never ends. Ignore him and move on. Yes, the Left will scream something about Trump ending democracy (even though we’re a Republic), but so what. They are saying that anyways.

    1. I don’t understand why one judge overrules another. Why doesn’t the first judge overrule this one?

      1. No idea kong. Some precedent somewhere changed the rules I guess. Or maybe they just make it up as they go. *shrugs*

      2. According to Daniel Horowitz it doesn’t and he believes this is a pivotal moment for Trumps administration to stand up to the court usurping his authority and our sovereignty. He was discussing it yesterday when the ruling broke so he explains it better than I can so maybe go to his twitter feed.

      3. They have coordinate authority since they’re both district judges. In cases on the same subject matter before different judges that aren’t consolidated, if one judge doesn’t issue an injunction and the other does, the injunction controls since it’s the only court order imposing affirmative obligations on anyone in effect.

        This is, of course, why cases are often consolidated.

      1. Yeah, we are no longer one of those either, this Gov does not represent the will of the people. Not even close ,,,,,

      1. You beat me to it but this statement about us being a democracy drives me nut We don’t pledge allegiance to the democracy, we pledge allegiance to the republic for which it stands!

  8. How long are we going to put up with this? And when this gets to the Supremes, which side of the bed does Roberts get up on? I’m not getting the “warm and fuzzies” over this one.

    1. Roberts will do what his blackmailers say. His blackmailers will speak up when a case is important enough for them to tell Roberts to rule their way.

      1. While I’ve never seen any evidence to support your supposition, I tend to agree.

  9. This is outrageous. So the judges are running the country and usurping the will of the people. Oh but Obama could use his dang pen and phone and rewrite immigration law all by himself and the judges did nothing.

    1. Tells you it’s all “rigged”. Amazing to see the gubmint corruption and they’re in out faces about it… just like 0zero said…. UGH!

  10. So one federal judge said not blocking, another said yes blocking.

    Just ignore the leftist trying to rule from the bench… right?

    1. Don’t count on it as history shows us GOP appointments other than a few tend to move left. Congress needs to do their job and strip these courts from areas they have no constitutional authority.

      1. This CONgress will never do their JOB. I’m certain, many of them don’t even understand what their job is. Their only sworn responsibility is to UPHOLD the Constitution of the United States of America.

      2. What is it about the Left that attracts judges to their side but never the other way around?

      3. The problem is that liberal judges have built so much case law on nonsense that Republican judges end up following liberal case law nonsense instead of the Constitution.

  11. Trump needs to stand up to the courts on something that has large support from the public at large. The census issue about asking if you are a legal resident would have been ideal as most think this is a legitimate question.This asylum rule could as well if he can get out there and articulate clearly why this makes perfect sense. The left will attack it as racist and evil but it is just another day that ends in y.

  12. Judge shopping, it’s called. Madison County, Illinois is known as the lawsuit capital of the country. They actually have a newspaper (it’s probably online now) devoted to nothing but litigation.

    1. That reputation is long since dead, at least as to the thing it was really famous for (class actions). CAFA was enacted in 2005 more or less as a direct response to the madness in Madison County.

      Dunno if it’s still got a busy docket in terms of individual actions, but its class action days are long behind it.

      1. Last time I spent any time down there was ’07 or ’08, that’s when I saw the paper. It’s not my area of expertise, I don’t keep up.

  13. Disheartening, but not surprising in the least.

    Liberal judges are ACTIVIST judges, make no mistake, and they have NO problem advancing their ideology from the bench, even if it means curtailing, blocking or perverting the powers guaranteed the Executive Branch via Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

    1. Despite what King Donny seems to think, Article II does not allow the President to do “whatever he wants”. The powers granted to the President under Article II are listed, and are limited to the following:
      * He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia when called into the actual Service of the United States;
      * he may require the opinion in writing of the members of the Cabinet
      * He can grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
      * he has the power, but only with the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, to make treaties
      * With the advice and consent of the Senate, he can appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States as determined by Congress
      * When the Senate is in recess, he has the power to fill vacancies temporarily.
      That’s it; that is the entirety of the powers given to the President by Article II. There is nothing in Article II that says the President can set aside laws passed by Congress when he doesn’t like them, and instead replace those laws with regulations that he likes better. That is clearly an attempt to curtail, block, or pervert the powers granted to the Legislative Branch by Article I of the US Constitution.

      1. I find him repugnant as well from time to time, but it’s been LONG AGO SETTLED that in addition to the Commander of our Armed Forces he also is Commander of our Borders and can make rules as he/she sees fit. There is NO precedent for this judge to block the order… NONE.

        8 U.S. Code §?1182. Inadmissible aliens

        (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

        1. No, he CANNOT “make rules as he sees fit”; he can only make rules such as the law — passed by Congress — gives him the authority to make, Furthermore, the President certainly is not the “Commander of our Borders”, which is a title that does not exist. Note that the power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare, and to regulate commerce with foreign countries, and to establish rules for naturalization (which includes immigration) all are explicitly given by the Constitution to Congress, and not the President. Furthermore, you explode your own argument by quoting the US Code. As you can see, the law gives certain powers to the President who may do certain things by proclamation, but in this case there was no action by the President himself, and no proclamation, but instead a rule created by the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Where in either the law or the Constitution does it ever begin to suggest that a law duly passed by Congress can be superseded by a regulation of an agency that had itself been created by Congress?

  14. The administration has no control over the 870 judges, who — for a reason I can’t fathom — all have the independent authority to stop any executive action indefinitely.

    The administration does have control over all executive agencies. So, has the administration done anything 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 the El Paso area as shown on video?

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

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

    …and what about the budget deal the administration agreed to? Does the new budget compromise extend protection from deportation to any adult living in a house with an unaccompanied minor (that “narrow category” including everyone in the world)?

    1. An act of congress explicitly gives the federal courts the authority to review and set aside executive actions.

      1. I’m probably one of the few people on this site who believes for the judiciary to be a co-equal branch they have to have the authority to review. I also believe there has to be an arbiter of what is constitutional or not, you can’t have states, the senate, the house, and executive agencies all deciding on their own what is or is not constitutional and all claiming they are the final say in the matter – that would be chaos.

        I expressed myself poorly. What I am questioning is why all 870 judges have equal authority, instead of say, just the district judge for DC. From a practical matter, I’m sure the idea was to give any citizen the right to go to court in their district. But, at the same time, it’s ridiculous any government action essentially requires unanimous approval from 870 judges – or more precisely, a policy opponent only needs to find one out of 870 to stymie the government. That’s insane and far more impractical than making a citizen petition the district court in DC.

        1. Executive, Judicial, and Legislative brances were designed to be co-equal, but the House of Representatives is 1984, the Judicial is Amimal Farm,
          and the Executive was made into the Demonic rats, the Clinton’s Obama’s and
          George Soros’s average citizen. I guess that makes you a jackass’s pig sphincter.

          1. So you agree the branches of the federal government are supposed to be co-equal, you then reference two books (written by self-described socialist) in a way I question whether you ever read either of them, and then launch into a pre-adolescent name-calling attack on me because we agree the branches are supposed to be co-equal…this is why I never go to Breitbart.

    2. Federal court judges do NOT have authority to stop executive actions. They are being specifically shopped for/chosen to rule based on ideology, not the Constitution, on lawsuits often brought by people with no standing. They are repeatedly making extremely important decisions for the entire country without the authority to do so. There are many excellent articles about this continuing and now accelerated judicial tyranny by Daniel Horowitz over at conservative review website. I had very high hopes that POTUS and AG would finally fight back against this outrage that has made unelected justices more powerful than an elected President, and am extremely discouraged that they haven’t done so yet.

      1. I am fully aware CR thinks Marbury v Madison was wrongly decided and by co-equal they think federal courts shouldn’t have any authority at all.

        That was an aside because there is nothing, you, me, or the administration can do about the judges.

        However, the administration does have control over their own executive agencies. I am asking if they’ve made any progress in cleaning up the mess and forcing compliance in their own area of responsibility.

  15. Something has to be done about this. There has to be some sort of action that can be taken against judges who make rulings like these. I’m talking about judges who base the decisions on things other than the Constitution or law. It’s really not hard to figure out from their opinions.

    1. There is. The president, with the support of Congress, needs to stop going along with outlandish judicial decisions. Right now, the judiciary is making a mockery of the executive branch.

      1. Optimally they’d have their jobs taken away and lose their ability to be a judge of any sort, for life. Some of these folks are so drunk on their own power because they know nothing can happen to them.

  16. Trump should win this at the Supreme Court level. In the meantime, we need to elect Trump again in 2020 so he can continue reshaping the courts.

    1. I’ve been hearing about how Republican presidents need to fix the judiciary for 30 years, and it hasn’t happened. We’d be better off with a stronger, more conservative president who went around judicial decisions not based on the Constitution like Lincoln did.

      1. No. More people are seeing Congress’s schemes and the media if President trump repeatedly refers to their treasons. E.O.’s can be changed every four years if Congress doesn’t enact laws as defined by the Constitution they are sworn to abide by.

    2. Yeah…so much good was done in the first two years, Zerocare was repealed, the budget was balanced, we started paying off on the debt, border wall construction started, planned murderhood was defunded, North Koreas nuclear program was dismantled, Iran’s nuclear program was clipped, instead of gun control the national reciprocity and hearing protection acts were passed, all while we deported the first big chunk of illegals with standing deportation orders…


      1. Trump is one man going against a tide of people in D.C. that want to make us all serfs. People seem to forget that.

      2. Gorsuch voting with liberal justices to coddle child pornographers was the low point imo.

    3. He needs to stop going to the Supreme Court over everything. This decision is a total joke which should be immediately ignored. A judge cannot make up his or her own definition of what “standing” is.

  17. [[The decision makes inconsequential a ruling by Washington D.C. District Judge Timothy Kelly earlier in the day]]
    Funny how judges never rule in favor of trump by making previous ruling ‘inconsequential’

  18. An activist judge is more powerful than the president. An illegal has more rights than a citizen. That’s what this comes down to. If the GOP was better at messaging this judge shopping would come to a halt.

    1. for a moment there, I thought you may have recorded me reacting to Ferris Mueller’s questioning yesterday…

  19. Ever since Obama left office nearly three years ago it appears his priorities have been to collect on all his appointed you owe me Judges.I hope there is no one out there who believes these Court Rulings against our President are just coincidental acts.This is Obama corruption at its best

  20. Y’know, he’d probably have an easier go of all this immigration stuff if he’d approach it legislatively.

    1. The thought of getting the current Democratic House to agree to any immigration restriction legislation is pretty ludicrous right now. Up until recently, they were denying there was any kind of crisis at the border. They prefer the crisis, because they want the pressure to simply create open borders.

    2. That requires Democrats and enabling RINO’s to actually do their jobs instead of preening for the Meinstream Media and wiping their butts all over the Constitution.

      1. Yea. I don’t know why we keep electing those guys.

        It’s like we’re too gutless of an electorate to demand what we actually want and illustrate it with our votes.

        1. It’s because MTV started preaching to vote, and then telling them who to vote for, instead of how to vet candidates, or do a little research, AT. That spawned a movement across cable TV and social media when it came along. The message is VOTE, not ‘KNOW who or what you be votin’ fo’, hence, we got Barack O’muslim, and they love AOC.

          1. Maybe it’s not me who should be doing a little research, but the rest of the electorate. Those ignorant bastards.

  21. Why does one judge get his way and the other one doesn’t? Why doesn’t Trump just follow the first d decision?

    1. Because they don’t bother with the rule of law anymore. These judges have gone rogue and no one is stopping them. They should be made to give Memoranda of Points and Authorities outlining the laws on which they made their decisions. I’m not sure any of them could pass muster.

  22. ARRRRRRGH! These activist judges are driving me insane! I can’t believe their chutzpah in thwarting Trump’s every move. Who ever gave them that kind of power in the first place? Jeezo flip! Augh…..

    1. Who ever gave them that kind of power in the first place?

      They took such power in Marbury v Madison.

      1. Technically that’s right, but the general consensus is that the founders intended for them to have that power. The federalist papers talk about it quite a bit.

      2. The concept of judicial review is a legitimate one, even if Marshal should have stopped once he recognized that the court did not have standing in Marbury. The problem is when judicial review is extended past what the court is allowed to decide, and judges implement their version of the law, instead of interpreting the law as written.

        1. The standing the judge gave the plaintiffs, which says non-profits are injured because they may have to divert funds if the asylum rules go into effect, is completely ridiculous and has nothing to do with the legal concept of standing as intended in the Constitution. The judge errs in thinking non-profits getting funds for migrants is a constitutionally or legally protected right. It is not. Also, judges are not supposed to give standing on a hypothetical injury but a proven one. If Trump doesn’t go around this opinion, he doesn’t deserve to be reelected.

          1. If that is what this whole thing is based on, it’s just more of the same judicial BS.

      3. The practice of nationwide injunctions by any federal judge is pretty new. At least some of SCOTUS — especially Justice Thomas — think we need to rein in the practice, because it essentially allows any federal judge to overrule any policy by the president if they can create a rationale. Which, of course, is exactly what lawyers do by profession.

        In a highly partisan age like ours, with plenty of very left-wing judges appointed by Democratic presidents specifically to push the courts to the left, the potential for abuse is obvious. And being frequently exploited.

      4. “As we told you yesterday, Judge Tigar is an Obama appointee.”

        ‘Nuff said.

        1. I’m not sure you grasped the answer I gave. You might not like the decision reached for good reason but where they got the power is a different answer than who appointed them.

  23. I remember the good old days when someone would just file one lawsuit and that would be it.

    How old are you? Judge shopping has been a thing for decades. Mostly for civil suits but it was inevitable that it would spill over into other areas of law.

  24. So we no longer have 3 equal branches of Gov….the Judicial branch runs the whole show….time for the Executive branch to take their power back….tell the judge to “f” himself and do what the Constitution allows….

        1. They are in check. They’re not deciding on anything that doesn’t come across their bench. If they start doing that, then we can talk. But as for now, they’re just doing their job – keeping the President from being a King.

          For the record, I have no problem with the asylum rule. Except that I wish it was coming from Congress instead of by fiat from the oval office.

          1. They are not in check. How does one lower court decision override the other lower court decision, and force an injunction? It’s not logical. How is filing multiple lawsuits to find the lone judge that will rule against the executive not circumventing the system? How is going back to that judge over and over, and elevating them over the President of the United States of America how the founders envisioned the judicial branch applying a check to the executive branch?

          2. In this case it is coming through statutory law. This judge should have ruled that he does not have standing to rule in this case, as all executive actions were in accord with 8 U.S.Code s 1158 and Paragraph (a)(3) specifically states that judicial review is prohibited, but the judge ignored that section.

    1. I do blame Trump. He needs to stand up for himself and go around this. He is letting the judiciary make a mockery of immigration laws and the executive branch.

    1. The President should shut the border down for all of 2020, put Congress on notice over the lack of a physical barrier, and let the people decide if they want open borders next November.

    2. Not doable. The United States is obligated to abide by trade agreements with Mexico. The only way would be to suspend the Constitution and enact Martial Law.

  25. This outcome is consistent with statute. Under 8 U.S. Code § 1158:

    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 this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

    The executive action in question is in conflict with the underlined portion of the statute. It is an attempt to set aside part of the statute. If the President wants the statute changed, he needs to go through the legislative process to get it done.

    1. The right to apply for asylum is a separate issue from allowing entry. They can be denied entry and still apply for asylum, and as such the paragraph that you reference is irrelevant to the subject of this judgement, as their is no conflict with the statue cited.

      In fact, if you continue reading 8 U.S. Code s 1158 further, specifically (a)(2)(A) and (a)(3), As the right to apply for asylum has not been denied, you will find the Attorney General has the discretion in this matter, and that no judicial review is allowed in the issue before the court. The court should have ruled that it had no standing to begin with.

      1. The case didn’t involve barring the ability to seek asylum. It involved a limitation on the application for asylum that conflicted with the process set forth in the statute, namely the ability of an alien who is present in the United States or arrives in the United States to seek asylum.

      1. If there is an agreement in place, and Trump recently got that agreement. Don was mistaken in his comment.

        1. That’s false information. The correct answer is that they are supposed to apply for asylum in the first safe nation they enter, which basically means a nation that will not send them back to the one where they are claiming persecution.

          There can be some dispute over what constitutes a safe nation. Sometimes there is an official “safe third country” agreement, such as the one between Canada and the US. Someone from Mexico who traveled across the US to claim asylum in Canada could therefore be sent back to Mexico, because he should have requested asylum in the US.

          The same would apply to someone crossing the border into the US from Canada and trying to claim asylum. That person would be turned down because they did not apply for asylum while in Canada. But since there are no nations to the north of Canada, it’s usually a moot point.

          The Trump administration is trying to get safe third country agreements with Mexico and Guatemala. Of course, both nations profit from illegal immigration, so it’s not surprising that they’re reluctant.

          (This does not apply to the “Remain in Mexico” policy for those applying for asylum, since that only means that the person applying for asylum has to remain in Mexico instead of the US before an asylum hearing.)

          1. That isn’t US law, and thus, is false information.

            US law permits removal either if the asylum seeker passed through a country with which the US has an actual safe third country agreement, or if the asylum seeker was actually settled in a third country before applying for asylum here.

  26. No doubt the surge in democrat financed border crossings are another attempt to influence the 2020 election

  27. 1. Democrats create an issue by making it difficult to enforce the immigration laws

    2. Democrats then encourage people to exploit the issue they created
    3. The issue becomes a full-blown crisis
    4. The administration tries to manage the crisis
    5. Each attempt to manage the crisis is demagogued as hateful and fascistic
    6. A Democrat judge issues a nationwide injunction to prevent the attempted solution
    7. The administration appeals the decision or attempts a workaround
    8. Go back to step 6.

    Steps 1 through 5 are fairly traditional. Steps 6 through 8 are fairly new.

  28. The best article I have read about yesterdays hearings.John Nolte at Brietbart writes “Robert Mueller isn’t senile,he was a Dirty Cop forced to take the witness stand”. Absolutely the best you will read.

    1. I read Nolte’s article. I have also read so many other’s who are not so willing to give Mueller a pass on his possible senility/dementia. What strikes me is that at least at the begining of the hearing he seemed to hear every Dem. making their statements, but all of a sudden he did the dodge tactic with asking the R’s on the committee to repeat their questions, again and again. I read a tweet that actually asked if he was trying to set up an insanity defence because he so willingly took the job, and then knowingly handed it immediately over to Weissmann and his Dem. henchmen. Weissmann hired everyone on the Spygate team. Mueller had to be at least aware enough to know, 2 years ago, that he was handing the entire investigation over to Hillary Democrat operatives. He could not have been unaware of that. Mueller has entrapped himself in some really bad and shady stuff when he was supposedly mentally deficient or cognizant. Take the Boston case as an example when he kept 4 innocent men in prison for murder, when he knew Whitey Bulger was the real murderer, so he could keep an FBI resource protected. Mueller has been more than willing to completely ruin people’s lives. He proved that yet again with threatening, bankrupting, ruining lives, and jailing people for otherwise minor crimes.

      Bob Mueller deserves to spend his last years in the same prisons he falsely sent innocent people to. Hey, if he’s senile, he might not even know he’s in prison. He may think it’s his assisted care facility.

      1. After reading all your comments,I am now convinced more than ever that this was a hand picked Special Counsel for only one purpose,to impeach the President. Rosenstein picks Mueller.[long time friend] Mueller picks Weissmann,[long time friend] and allows Weissmann to pick the rest of the team who have all worked cases together and been criticized for their results Rosenstein knew Mueller was a weak link and unable to control Weissmann nor anyone else on that Special Counsel Team.Thanks Pinecone,always enjoy reading your comments.Sorry for the slow response,I went to the Olive Garden for a Salad, Spaghetti and Meat Balls,and one Glass of red wine.

        1. Only one glass? Haha

          Yes, as some have said there was more than one “insurance policy.” Thank you God it appears it has all failed spectacularly. Have a great day.

  29. Whenever there is another Democrat in office the same should be done in return where every policy has 50 lawsuits filed in different states.

  30. The ruling: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1je6-S5lyKffhvHlgBSJy37CPWE50MZ-m/view

    The Attorney General may deny entry to aliens if their is a bilateral, or multilateral agreement with other countries, and Trump’s deal with Mexico is one.

    An immigration deal signed between two countries is by definition a bilateral agreement, which is all that 8 U.S.C. s 1158 calls for; it does not stipulate what type of agreement, or require any oversight from congress, but it does prohibit judicial review. Clearly and unambiguously this law was designed to give the executive branch all the latitude in policy making with respects to dealing with aliens attempting entry into the US. The law does not change simply because it is interpreted wrongly, or you don’t like the President. In fact, the only exclusion to executive authority is that unaccompanied minors must be allowed entry.

    In his opinion the judge tries to push aside the prohibition of judicial review stipulated in paragraph 8 U.S. Code s 1158 (a)(3), with the statement, “Notwithstanding the grant of discretion to the Attorney General…” and then proceeds to list other facts of immigration law, that while true in and of themselves, are irrelevant, because they neither nullify the discretion of the AG, or the prohibition against judicial review, but are they themselves under the discretion of the AG.

    This is once again an egregious case of judicial trespass on the prerogatives of the executive and a violation of the separation of powers, just as the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census was

    1. Judicial review is prohibited as to individual asylum determinations, not promulgated regulations, which are reviewable.

      The underlying reg doesn’t cite the deal with Mexico.

      I could keep going but perhaps we should start there.

      1. I can see your point on your first comment, as it mentions the singular in (a)(2)(A), but it also does not prohibit the AG’s discretion to all aliens. They are being placed in a safe third country, through a bilateral agreement, which term would be inclusive of the agreement with Mexico. There would have to be other statues involved, besides this one.

        What specific statue(s) does the agreement with Mexico violate? If you know,, please point me in the right direction. I am open to the idea that this agreement may not be legal, but if not, it seems absurd, because they should have just simplified it by writhing a statue that says that we have open borders and anyone that wants to can enter.

        1. It’s not even the singular/plural issue, judicial review is cabined only as to determinations made under subparagraph 2, which are, by their nature, individual determinations as to the admissibility of a given asylum seeker.

          I didn’t say that the agreement with Mexico violated any statutes, but it’s also not material to the underlying regulation at issue here. I think you may have this regulation mixed up with the remain in Mexico policy.

          The regulation ruled on today essentially imposes restrictions on asylum seekers beyond those set forth in the statute; they didn’t cite the safe third country provision of 1158 as the underlying authority.

          1. What then is the underlying authority and regulation?

            You are somewhat correct, my thinking has been a little muddied between this regulation and the Remain in Mexico agreement. But I have read the order granting this injunction, and I focused on the 1158 references in it, because that is basically the only argument being put forth in comments sections, and by that alone, this court does not have the authority for judicial review; I have not had time to research the rest of it.

            That does not preclude other law. I want to find the actual statutory law that this injunction is based on, not some BS unconstitutional judicial review, especially from the ninth circuit. I read and understand English fairly well, so I want to read the actual words that Congress passed and the President signed into law, not some liberal open borders judicial usurpation of either the executive or legislative authority.

            If you know what that is, could you please specify that statutory law for me?

        2. Thank you Dan Morgan for weighing in here with your legal knowledge/legal opinions. We desperately needed someone to challenge Slantry’s opinions.

          1. I mean he is evidently not a lawyer, and the majority of what we’re discussing isn’t a matter of opinion.

            Dan Morgan I mean no offense to you by this. You’re clearly a smart guy, but I am reasonably confident you’re not an attorney.

          2. Thank you for your kind remarks.

            I do not have much legal knowledge, but I am adept at reading and understanding English, and fair at reasoned argument. Slantry may know more, and he may very well be correct, but I need to see the evidence for myself, not just take his word for it. My initial position is that the US as a sovereign nation has the right to turn anyone away, the same as an individual has the right to decide who visits or resides in his home. I want to see the actual law that changes that, and specifically in this case, I want to see the law that both gives the authority to this court for review, and the one that nullifies this rule.

            The only defense of this injunction order that I have seen in comments sections is based on 8 U.S.Code 1158, and that just doesn’t cut it, it specifically prohibits judicial review of the decisions made by the AG, and meets all other requirements listed therein. That is not to say that this court is not allowed judicial review, or other laws that nullify this rule do not exist, but 1158 is not one of them.

  31. Trump Administration Considering ‘Travel Ban’ On Guatemalans After Asylum Snub

    “If Guatemala doesn’t take significant action to help protect our borders, then we will, of course, look at all manner of solutions to the serious crisis we face,” a White House official told NPR, “whether it’s a travel ban, significant actions on remittances and/or tariffs.”

    The White House is looking at the authority already granted to the executive branch to suspend the entry of classes of people when it’s considered detrimental to national interests.

    Trump said Wednesday that the United States was planning to take “severe” action against the government of Guatemala after, he said, it broke a deal with the United States to serve as a safe third party country.


  32. A federal judge over rides another one just hours later? Why not shop this case to more judges until one rules that Trump wasn’t wrong pfft it all shows how ridiculously corrupt the left is just judge shop until you get the result you want.

Comments are closed.