world

Trump administration calls U.S. judge's asylum ruling 'absurd'

22 Comments
By Dan Levine

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

22 Comments
Login to comment

The Trump Admin are experts in absurdly, so they may just be onto something here.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Trump should fire his legal team for letting him even attempt these stunts. Just makes him look stupid.

The law on this is clear. If he'd spent time last spring working with Congress to get the law changed while the Reps had both houses, there was a chance. Now there isn't.

I'm unhappy that they didn't try to get the ACA repealed once McCain died too.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The President has the right voice his opinion, but this should’ve never happened, for years our system has been broken in both side should’ve come together to fix it, it’s not the president’s fault for wanting to have increase border security and just stop chain migration and visa lottery, stop catch and release. I get his frustration, but then what the president can do is make sure that people go through the front in alignment and that they play accordingly and if it takes him for months and months, then so be it, but this should never be allowed in, just because they feel the need they can come in.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

It is absurd. It’s like being allowed to just pay for an item with no penalty after the guard at the store catches you stealing it.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

My guess is the reasoning behind it is that if you're fleeing for your life you don't always have the luxury of picking and choosing where you cross to get into the US. And if it is determined that you are in legitimate danger, the government doesn't want to send you back knowing you could be harmed.

That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it. I'd probably support some tightening to it, for example having to declare immediately when entering.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

bass: for years our system has been broken in both side should’ve come together to fix it

There have been bipartisan bills that have been killed by the far right of the GOP. Here's the one the Senate passed in 2013 that the GOP blocked in the House: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744. They refused to vote on it because it would have passed.

stop chain migration and visa lottery

Chain migration was to be drastically reduced to just your kids and spouse (no more parents like Melania's), and it was done via a point based merit system. The visa lottery was to be stopped entirely.

I think you'll find quite a few things are included that you'll like, even ones you didn't know about.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

S.744 includes amnesty for illegal immigrants in Sec. 2101. Non-starter.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That judge should be impeached.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

There have been bipartisan bills that have been killed by the far right of the GOP. Here's the one the Senate passed in 2013 that the GOP blocked in the House

But there was never support for a wall, back then the GOP wanted an end to chain migration the sealing of our borders and the Democrats wouldn’t go for it. Nice try though.

Chain migration was to be drastically reduced

Not reduced, end it totally and unequivocally.

The visa lottery was to be stopped entirely.

Not true.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/stop-gambling-national-security-end-visa-lottery-ncna825761

even ones you didn't know about

I’m from a border State, immigration was the main reason I voted for Trump, so I know all the reasons in detail.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Bass: But there was never support for a wall

That is meaningless. It doesn’t preclude it. Sign the bill then go for the wall anyway.

back then the GOP wanted an end to chain migration

The bill severely limits chain migration. For example, Meliana wouldn’t have gotten her parents in under this law.

the sealing of our borders and the Democrats wouldn’t go for it.

The bill calls for an increase in funding for border security, including money for more walls. It also says the border will not be considered sealed unless the GOP signs off on it, and most of the provisions are blocked until that time. They had 100% of the power.

Nice try though.

I wasn’t trying anything. You wrote, “both side should’ve come together to fix it” and I gave you examples of both sides doing that.

I think you might have meant to say, “Everyone should come together and agree to the positions of the minority, fringe GOP members.”

6 ( +6 / -0 )

TheFu: S.744 includes amnesty for illegal immigrants in Sec. 2101. Non-starter

Alrighty, then. Status quo it is.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The SC ruled on this five moths ago in favor of President Trump's EO pertaining to his authority guaranteed by the Constitution to decide who gets to come into our countr and who doesn't. The ruling by a liberal hack posing as a federal judge will go through the legal review process and eventually get overturned (again) by the SC.

In the meantime, the days of "catch and release" are over. Our policy now is "catch and detain". Hope the "asylum" seekers enjoy their time in the tent cities now in place along our southern border. They will be calling them home for quite some time.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Ohwell the SCOTUS slapped down that hippy liberal judge from Hawaii who was against the Muslim Ban.

So it was a Muslim ban. This is refreshing to hear - for the last 2 years the far right Trump base has been pretending that it was just a selective travel ban & it definitely wasn't a Muslim ban.

The judge in this case, was doing his job, trying to save the last remnants of an America people used to look up to.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Jon Tigar in San Francisco 

wow. Shocker.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

It's wrong to say the asylum seekers are "fleeing for their lives". Their fleeing stopped once they entered Mexico- the first safe country available.. From there, they simply became economic migrants and pawns for a larger political battle. Especially considering how quickly they managed to "walk" across 2000km of desert to the California/Mexico border. Something tells me that this is a rather organized and well funded event, not a spontaneous eruption.

Given the nature of the changing economy, the last thing any country needs is MORE unskilled workers.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Under the UN convention law, the asylum seeker must register in first and safe country. They must register and apply for asylum in Mexico. They are genuine refugees and in fact they are economy refugees.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I’m from a border State, immigration was the main reason I voted for Trump, so I know all the reasons in detail.

Once again, personal anecdotes aren't solid evidence. Smh. ROFL. Kuddos!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm from a border state, too, but I guess that doesn't mean anything heh.

Orange County, bass's area, is now 100% blue. And if you're blue, then it means you support open borders.

Or so I'm told.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm from a border state, too, but I guess that doesn't mean anything heh.

It means you're from a border state.

It does not evidence that you "know all the reasons in detail," etc.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That is meaningless. It doesn’t preclude it. Sign the bill then go for the wall anyway.

It should be somewhat easier now since the Democrats have the House now.

The bill severely limits chain migration.

Not limit, end it.

The bill calls for an increase in funding for border security, including money for more walls. It also says the border will not be considered sealed unless the GOP signs off on it, and most of the provisions are blocked until that time. They had 100% of the power.

But Schumer wasn’t happy with Trump legalizing half a million, the numbers kept changing, the Dems didn’t say they would end chain migration or the visa lottery program. So Trump said, No to the dreamers, especially if the Dems renege on their promise and don’t want to fully fund the entire wall.

I think you might have meant to say, “Everyone should come together and agree to the positions of the minority, fringe GOP members.”

Well, let’s see how the Dems will handle this because there are things the Dems want to get through the legislative and that won’t happen for them if they don’t compromis.

It means you're from a border state.

It means, I have over 30 years of experience seeing what happens along the border since back in the day going to TJ was a normal thing for us being 70 minutes away. So yes, I know the border all too well.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So Trump said, No to the dreamers, especially if the Dems renege on their promise and don’t want to fully fund the entire wall.

The Dems can't force Mexico to pay for anything.

It means, I have over 30 years of experience seeing what happens along the border since back in the day going to TJ was a normal thing for us being 70 minutes away. So yes, I know the border all too well.

Okay. This doesn't mean you know in detail everything about immigration. If you said you were an immigration lawyer with 30 years experience, it would mean you know a lot about immigration.

Whew! Logic is difficult. ROFL. Kuddos! Smh.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Dems can't force Mexico to pay for anything.

Until the money is reimbursed the Dems refused to fully fund the wall, but that’s ok, the dreamers have to wait as well, so....

Okay. This doesn't mean you know in detail

Sadly, I do because it has been a sticky issue for me since the Reagan administration.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites