قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / The almost complete asylum ban of the Trump government was blocked by the judge

The almost complete asylum ban of the Trump government was blocked by the judge



With a painful defeat against Trump's most comprehensive efforts to single-handedly revise the asylum system without a congress, a federal judge blocked a rule on Wednesday that made most migrants from Central America and other US countries inaccessible to asylum , Border with Mexico.

Judge Jon Tigar of the US District Court for the Northern District of California agreed to issue an injunction to stop the policy while considering the merits of a legal challenge cited by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU ).

In his order, Tigar seemed to agree with the plaintiffs' concerns that the US government could return asylum seekers in dangerous circumstances simply because they did not seek protection in countries like Mexico. The judge stated that Mexico does not have as robust a asylum system as the US to guarantee people a safe haven.

Immigration
More




More in Immigration

"A temporary injunction would reaffirm public interest in our existing immigration laws, to make sure we do not put foreigners in the hands of their persecutors," wrote Tigar in his 45-page job.

<img alt = "Central American asylum seekers log on to the US Border Police after illegally crossing the Rio Grande at Los Ebanos US Border Patrol in Los Ebanos, Texas, USA, June 28, 2019.

LOREN ELLIOTT / REUTERS


Earlier Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington refused to block the policy demanded by the plaintiffs in a second legal challenge to the controversial policy.

The rule faced by this judicial challenge restricts access to the US asylum system for non-Mexican migrants who have traveled through Mexico and other countries to reach the southwestern border, but no protection in these countries have searched. Although the scheme seeks to stem the influx of Central American migrants traveling north, it also affects people from other parts of the world who are trying to enter the United States via Mexico – including Cubans, Venezuelans, Brazilians and Central Africans entering the US traveled to Mexico this year in greater numbers.

The joint regulation dramatically changed the asylum system for migrants seeking refuge on the southern border. Prior to the rule, migrants who entered the US illegally were allowed to apply for asylum after being arrested by border guards. Most asylum-seeking families were usually released from immigration detention after less than 20 days in detention and allowed to stay in the US while their cases were decided.

At the end of last year, Tigar blocked similar action by the government to ban migrants crossing the border illegally from seeking asylum.

Melissa Crow, Senior Inspector of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Immigrant Justice Project. One of the groups that joined the ACLU in the San Francisco lawsuit against the new rule praised Tigar's decision on Wednesday.

"Today's ruling is an important victory for incredibly vulnerable individuals and families from besieged Central American countries seeking refuge in our country," Crow said in a statement. "We will continue to fight this draconian policy, as well as the multitude of others by which the Trump government continues to wage war on asylum seekers and our nation's asylum system."

Soon after the entry into force of the regulation last week, two lawsuits were filed – including those cited by the ACLU – to block the directive. The plaintiffs alleged that the regulation violated federal law and violated the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which allows most people entering the US soil to seek asylum when pursuing persecution in their home country fear.

The complaint filed by the ACLU and other groups in San Francisco said the new provision violated this core provision of US law. The plaintiffs also noted that under the INA, the Congress stipulated that the government should only deport asylum seekers to a third country in order to seek a safe haven if the US and that country were part of a bilateral or multilateral agreement.

"The rule is part of an illegal effort to significantly undermine, if not eliminate, the US asylum system at the southern border, and cruelly shuts our doors to refugees fleeing persecution and forces them to harm again. " Petition read.

In a rare public rebuke to US domestic policy, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees receiving US funds criticized the scheme as a "heavy" effort that was "out of line" with international obligations for refugees.

"It will jeopardize vulnerable families," High Commissioner Filippo Grandi said earlier this week, noting that many migrants in the countries they travel to at the border between the US and Mexico have an "effective" one international protection ". "It will undermine the efforts of countries across the region to find the coherent, collective answers they need."

However, administrators who have often fought "loopholes" in the US asylum system have strongly defended the rule. consider it an urgent need for the government to cope with the months-long increase of families in Central America towards the southern border.

Attorney General William Barr, who oversees the country's immigration courts, said the rule was also drafted to ban "forum shopping by economic migrants" to describe the decision-making process that migrants believe to be involved. They accuse migrants of seeking asylum in the United States rather than in their countries, which could potentially provide them with a safe haven.


Source link