Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration from requiring asylum seekers to return to Mexico as they await court hearings in the U.S. But the judge delayed implementing his ruling to give the government time to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco wrote in a 27-page ruling that current U.S. law does not authorize the Department of Homeland Security to enact the Migrant Protection Protocols, first announced in a December 2018 memo by outgoing Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen. Seeborg also wrote that the MPP lacked sufficient safeguards for ensuring that people who want to apply for asylum are not returned "to places where they face undue risk to their lives or freedom."
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups on behalf of 11 asylum seekers from Central America. It argued that requiring the migrants to wait in Mexico violated humanitarian protections offered under U.S. and international law.
"The court strongly rejected the Trump administration's unprecedented and illegal policy of forcing asylum seekers to return to Mexico without hearing their claims," said deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, Judy Rabinovitz in a statement. "Try as it may, the Trump administration cannot simply ignore our laws in order to accomplish its goal of preventing people from seeking asylum in the United States."
Are you kidding? Their trashing Mexico now as being dangerous. Pardon my memory, but didn’t the left go bananas when Trump said some Mexicans are rapists and criminals? I believe they also mentioned how Mexicans aren’t coming anymore because things are good in Mexico now. These San Francisco judges are off the deep end. Which begs the question.
Why doesn’t someone just file for injunction in one of the other Judicial Circuits before the ACLU or whatever stooge puppet funded by Business files it in the 9th circuit? If the other circuit denies the request, can the 9th circuit override its standing ruling?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
