Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


ILL IMM Migrant caravan plows on despite facing border bottleneck after Trump tightens asylum rules
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    155,090

    Migrant caravan plows on despite facing border bottleneck after Trump tightens asylum rules

    Migrant caravan plows on despite facing border bottleneck after Trump tightens asylum rules

    4-5 minutes

    A major shot across the bow from President Trump on Thursday may give migrants in the Central American caravan second thoughts about entering the U.S.

    The caravan, numbering roughly 6,000, spent one more night in Mexico City before continuing north to Queretaro.

    However, in a statement issued jointly by the DHS and DOJ, the administration said migrants will not be allowed to enter the U.S. illegally to file asylum claims, which is how the vast majority of roughly 150,000 Central American families and children entered the U.S. last fiscal year.

    Instead, they will be required to enter through official ports of entry, like those near San Diego, Yuma and El Paso. By issuing the new directive, the President is creating a bottleneck by funneling tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to already overcrowded ports.

    With long lines, and long wait times adding up to several months, most migrants will have no choice but to turn around or pursue jobs in Mexico. Others, impatient, will try to cross illegally. If caught, they will lose the right to apply for legal entry for 3 to 10 years.

    “Our asylum system is overwhelmed with too many meritless asylum claims from aliens who place a tremendous burden on our resources, preventing us from being able to expeditiously grant asylum to those who truly deserve it," said Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker in a joint statement.

    The administration calls the claims ‘meritless’ since roughly 80 percent are ultimately rejected by an immigration judge. However, because of various court rulings and weak standards of proof, most asylum seekers pass their initial screening interview, providing them permission to live and work in the US until a final ruling. By then, usually about two years, many disappear.

    The new rule will face legal challenges, but the outcome is not certain, leaving the exodus of Central Americans now in Mexico with a quick decision.

    There are 6,000 migrants here in Mexico City and another 4,000 headed north in three additional caravans, according to the International Organization for Migration.

    Do they spent another four weeks walking north, praying their odds will improve, or accept offers to stay in Mexico for up to a year, with a legal residency and the right to pursue a job.

    Jorge Gomez, 14, is traveling with his 47-year-old father Amilca. Both are from Guatemala.

    “We do want to apply for asylum, and we want to leave because there’s too much violence in our country,” Amilca said last week after 10 days on the road and 300 miles north of the Guatemala border.

    But after spending two hours with attorneys Wednesday in Mexico City, the family is reconsidering their asylum claim which is based on extortion threats from a local gang.

    “They threatened us to give them money or they would kill (Amilca) and all of us,” Jorge said. “He started to pay the money and then they asked for a higher amount - he refused. Then they put a gun to his head that they kill him and his family.”

    Jorge said the attorney told them the Trump administration doesn’t consider gang violence grounds of an asylum claim. “She said because of our case, what happened, it is going to be difficult. all we been through is not accepted anymore in the US.”

    Others don’t have a choice. William Blanco will have to cross illegally. He has four children living in Ohio but he’s been deported four times, once for domestic violence and once for driving without a license. the other two involved re-entry after deportation. He spent 14 months in jail on the last charge.

    When asked why he was going back, even when he's been deported four times, Blanco replied: “For my kid, for my little girl, every little girl needs a daddy."


    https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-c...s-asylum-rules

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Williamsburg County,S.C.
    Posts
    8,611
    ...
    Attached Images
    "America is at that awkward stage, to late to work within the system, but to early to shoot the bastards"-- Claire Wolfe

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern Indiana
    Posts
    5,490
    Trump signs a 90-day asylum ban for border crossers

    The policy, which restricts asylum to people who present themselves formally at official ports of entry, is Trump’s most legally dicey immigration move yet.

    By Dara Linddara@vox.com Updated Nov 9, 2018, 10:03am EST

    Starting at midnight tonight, and for the next 90 days, adults and families who cross the US/Mexico border without papers will not be eligible for asylum unless they wait at ports of entry — official border crossings. A presidential order signed by Trump Friday morning made the new policy official.

    Under US law, people who enter the US without papers are legally able to apply for asylum unless they are subject to specific restrictions. This policy — enacted via a regulation formally issued Friday morning, and Trump’s presidential proclamation signed soon after — turns that on its head. It adds a restriction that would affect the majority of the 10,000 people a month — most of them Central Americans, and many of them families — currently turning themselves in to border agents in hopes of being protected from violence in their home countries.

    It will force asylum seekers to choose between having to wait for weeks or longer at overloaded ports of entry — unless they’re prevented by smugglers from coming to a port at all — and risking near-immediate deportation by crossing illegally and turning themselves in to Border Patrol.

    The substance of the administration’s new policy is guaranteed to face a lawsuit — and will probably be put on hold at some point by a federal judge, as past Trump immigration actions have been. So will the methods by which they’re enacting it.

    The ban was activated by a proclamation Trump signed under the same provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that he used to sign the “travel bans” of 2017 (the last of which was upheld by the Supreme Court in a ruling in June 2018, and is still in effect). But the groundwork for it was laid by a regulation that went into effect immediately go into effect immediately when it was formally published in the Federal Register Friday — an unusually aggressive move.

    In theory, the ban could be lifted if Mexico agrees to sign a “safe third country agreement” with the United States — which would allow the US to turn back all asylum-seekers who had traveled through Mexico. (The US currently has such an agreement with Canada.) A safe-third-country agreement would essentially make the current Central American migration, which has brought hundreds of thousands of people from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to the US and Mexico to seek asylum in the last several years, Mexico’s problem alone to solve. Mexico, whose new president will arrive in office on December 1, has shown no interest so far in signing such an agreement.

    People affected by the new policy — which does not apply to children and teenagers who cross into the US without an adult — will still be able to seek humanitarian protection. However, they will be subject to a much higher screening standard to stay in the US and pursue their cases (as opposed to being immediately deported) than asylum seekers currently are. Instead of being held to a standard that 75 percent of people currently pass, they’ll be held to one about 25 percent of people pass.

    And even the people who pass that screening will only be eligible for lesser forms of legal status that don’t offer any opportunity to stay in the US permanently.

    The two-part policy change will affect thousands of people currently on their way to the US. A large share of asylum seekers will go from having a very good chance of being able to stay in the US and work legally during the months or years it takes to pursue their asylum claim, to having a very good chance of being summarily deported a few days after their arrival.

    What the new asylum policy will change
    Here’s how it works until midnight Friday night: Someone who enters the US without papers — either at a port of entry or otherwise — is subject to immediate deportation without a court hearing, unless she says she wants to claim asylum or that she fears persecution in her home country. In those cases, she’s entitled to an interview with an asylum officer.

    Generally, if the asylum officer determines that she has a “credible fear” of persecution (in other words, that there’s a significant possibility she’d be persecuted if deported based on her race, nationality, religion, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group), she is allowed to go before an immigration judge in the same court process that unauthorized immigrants arrested while living in the US are entitled to. There, she’s able to make her case for asylum. And in the meantime — since immigration court hearings take months or years — she’s legally able to work and live in the US.

    Even if she is being persecuted, she might still be ineligible for asylum — if she has a certain criminal record in the US or her home country, for example. But the judge will wait until the end of the process to make that judgment. If she is ineligible for asylum but still has reason to fear persecution, she can receive a lesser form of protection — called withholding of removal — that allows her to stay in the US but gives her no path to permanent legal status.

    Here’s how it will work as of midnight Friday night: Someone who enters the US without papers between ports of entry, from Mexico, will still be entitled to an interview with an asylum officer. But if she entered between ports of entry, the asylum officer is required to say that she does not have a credible fear of removal. Instead, he’s supposed to screen her for a reasonable fear of removal — a standard that requires not just a significant possibility of persecution but a determination that persecution is more likely than not.

    The “reasonable fear” standard is used only in rare cases under the status quo — for immigrants who’ve already been ordered deported and returned to the US, and immigrants who have committed serious crimes. But the difference in pass rates is striking. In credible fear interviews, about 75 percent of all asylum seekers pass. In reasonable fear interviews, a little more than 25 percent do. Even assuming that many asylum seekers who are currently subject to the credible fear standard would also pass the more stringent one, that’s still thousands of immigrants a month who would end up failing their screening interviews and being summarily deported.

    People who do pass the reasonable fear screening will be allowed to go before an immigration judge. But they still wouldn’t be eligible for asylum. Their only options would be withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. That allows the US to fulfill its obligations under international law — which prevents countries from returning migrants to places where their lives are in danger — but doesn’t give people any access to permanent legal status. (This Vox article offers more detail as to how this “withholding-only” process will work.)

    The Trump administration is coming closer than ever to using executive policy to override a law written by Congress.

    The Trump administration has a long track record of having its immigration policies put on hold (or struck down entirely) by federal judges. The first travel ban in January 2017; the family separation policy in June 2018; a host of setbacks on various fronts in its battle against sanctuary cities; its court-thwarted efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — at this point, it’s fair to say that litigation is expected whenever the administration makes a move.

    But even for the Trump administration, this policy is a bold assertion of executive power to restrict immigration to the United States.

    The text of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifies that people may apply for asylum “whether or not” they enter the US at a port of entry. The Trump administration is setting up to render that “or not” basically dead letter — at least as long as the expected proclamation is in effect.

    The administration justifies this by saying that the law also gives the attorney general broad power to set restrictions on asylum, and the president broad power to suspend entry (an interpretation encouraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the travel ban case in June, which didn’t actually specify any limits on this power).

    It’s the typical strategy on immigration under Trump: finding parts of the immigration system where the executive branch is given a lot of discretion, and use that discretion as aggressively as possible.

    But this comes darn close to using executive discretion to override a specific thing that Congress wrote into the law.

    It is near-certain that the policy will be subject to a lawsuit in the immediate future — maybe even before the policy even goes into effect at midnight Saturday. It is extremely likely that the policy will be put on hold by a federal judge ruling against the administration soon after that.

    The Trump administration, according to Julia Ainsley of NBC, thinks it’s going to prevail with the newly ensconced conservative majority on the Supreme Court. It might be right. But it’s going to be a closer call, on the law, than the travel ban was. It’s the riskiest fight, legally speaking, the administration has picked yet.

    https://www.vox.com/2018/11/8/180765...border-caravan

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.