Getting to the truth

[Isaac]

Judge strikes down Trump order preventing asylum requests, protections for illegal immigrants

The ruling is a a major blow to Trump as he looks to further enforce his broad immigration crackdown.

www.foxnews.com

Basically, the judge said that Trump cannot circumvent the INA and simply "declare" that the right to request asylum no longer exists.
I think this is good - it's the right result, and thinking that he could simply declare-it-away was kind of dumb in the first place - and a dangerous move for legitimate asylum seekers.

Then Trump adviser Stephen Miller says,

To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global "class" entitled to admission into the United States,

...but he's completely wrong, and disingenously dishonest as he knows full well he is wrong.
That's not what happened.

The judge didn't say that all potential future illegal aliens are part of a protected class entitled to admission to the US, he only said that Trump has to follow the INA, which grants people already in the US the ability to seek asylum. What's the point in having the law if the president can simply wave his glitter wand and say No to it?

Trump really needs to stay within his lane, which he struggles to do - I'm certainly becoming less and less supportive of him over time, although I still overwhelmingly and without reserve support the Republicans over the Democrats.

 

[AccessBlaster]

At least he's in the same ZIP code as where the alleged offense occurred. That alone is an upgrade from the usual judge-shopping we see so often.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Basically, the judge said that Trump cannot circumvent the INA and simply "declare" that the right to request asylum no longer exists.
I think this is good - it's the right result, and thinking that he could simply declare-it-away was kind of dumb in the first place - and a dangerous move for legitimate asylum seekers.

OK, let me get this straight. A criminal breaks into your neighbor's house because he is afraid to be outside and you believe the neighbor MUST keep him? I use "neighbor" because we wouldn't be having a discussion at all if the criminal broke into your house.

There are accepted norms for asylum requests. You don't get to travel thousands of miles though multiple countries and cross our border illegally only to be granted the RIGHT to claim asylum here because we have the best welfare state. That is suicidal. Let's put more sugar on the floor to keep out the ants. I don't mean to be personal but how many asylum seekers are you personally willing to adopt and care for? None, OK. By why do you think that I must accept people who begin their claim with a crime? If Mexico were at war and people were fleeing the carnage, that would be a different story. Or if Canada was the one at war. Both of those countries border ours and we are the nearest sanctuary so flexibility is required. But, flexibility is not required when the asylum seeker has traveled thousands of miles through multiple countries. They could have been "safe" in any country along the way.

Does the INA address the issue of illegal entry? OK, you are a French national and you're here on vacation so you are in the country legally. Your country devolves into a war against Jews and you're a Jew so you don't want to go home so you apply for asylum. OK. It makes sense to allow that. However if you travel from France to Spain and then to Mexico and then cross our border illegally. It is NOT OK even a little bit. You passed through three countries on your way and any of them would have been safe for you. You don't get to break into our country and then claim asylum because we provide the best freebies when you are not even Jewish and therefore not at jeopardy back in France.

We take in large numbers of LEGAL asylum seekers every year. You cannot force us to also take in ILLEGAL asylum seekers.

 

[Isaac]

Remember, it's not the right to asylum, just the right to try claiming it and begin the process.
And Mexico is a war zone.

The point isn't to debate the merits of asylum, the point was that there was a law delineating all of this and Trump thought he could just cause that law to cease to exist with a flip of his "EO" wand, as well as being about the silliness of Stephen Miller in his incorrect description of what happened

 

[Pat Hartman]

Remember, it's not the right to asylum, just the right to try claiming it and begin the process.
And Mexico is a war zone.

Not officially. Trump has offered the Mexican government help with shutting down the Cartels but the Mexican politicians are on the take and so are not interested. Do you have any idea what the Cartels charge each person to guide them on their illegal crossing journey? I think all the Mexicans who wanted to get away came a while ago. The illegals these days are from further south and abroad. The Mexican government ushers them through Mexico because God knows they don't want any of these people, and deposits them on our doorstep.

 

[Mike Krailo]

The point isn't to debate the merits of asylum, the point was that there was a law delineating all of this and Trump thought he could just cause that law to cease to exist with a flip of his "EO" wand, as well as being about the silliness of Stephen Miller in his incorrect description of what happened

Under the circumstances, which are extremely unusual compared to our historical number of asylum seekers, we have a national crisis influx of illegals that have infiltrated our system by the millions. That was never the intent of asylum to take in anyone for any low bar reason, just look at our history on this. I think what Trump should do is make every effort to turn off all asylum seeking in our country as a matter of national emergency until the problem is resolved reasonably and point them to a different country that is not as overwhelmed as we are. This is an emergency and should be treated like it just like during covid when our rights were put on hold for the sake of the emergency. We should fix the border and immigration crisis first then entertain asylum seekers as it was intended with a high bar to meet the criteria for entry.

 

[Steve R.]

As an add-on to @Mike Krailo's post. It is my understanding that every illegal entrant into the US is supposed to be detained in a facility until their case can be adjudicated. Somehow that legal requirement became "lost". Instead of building new detention facilities to accommodate the invasion, the Biden administration simply released them. That was a purposeful avoidance of enforcing the law.