SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Members of a caravan of Central Americans who spent weeks traveling across Mexico walk from Mexico to the U.S. side of the border to ask authorities for asylum on April 29, 2018 in Tijuana, Baja California Norte, Mexico. (Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)
Saying Trump "May Not Rewrite the Immigration Laws" by Decree, Judge Orders Administration to Stop Ban on Asylum Seekers
"This ban is illegal, will put people's lives in danger and raises the alarm about President Trump's disregard for separation of powers," said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU
Nov 19, 2018
Saying the President Donald Trump had exceeded his presidential authority, a federal judge later Monday ruled against the president's attempt to restrict the abilities of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S. border and imposed a restraining order that directs the administration to resume accepting asylum claims from people regardless of where or how they enter country.
From CNN:
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point '"irreconcilably conflicts" with immigration law and the "expressed intent of Congress."
"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at "increased risk of violence and other harms at the border" if the administration's rule is allowed to go into effect.
The temporary restraining order is effective nationwide and will remain in effect until December 19, when the judge has scheduled another hearing, or further order of the court.
The challenge against Trump's move to bar people from claiming asylum outside of designated points of entry, like border checkpoints, said the administration was violating both the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so.
Immigrant rights groups praised the ruling.
"This ban is illegal, will put people's lives in danger and raises the alarm about President Trump's disregard for separation of powers," said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, which along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights had challenged the president. "There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry."
"This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump's war on asylum seekers," Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. "While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
aclucenter for constitutional rightscustoms and border protection (cbp)human rightsimmigrationrefugeestrumpism
Saying the President Donald Trump had exceeded his presidential authority, a federal judge later Monday ruled against the president's attempt to restrict the abilities of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S. border and imposed a restraining order that directs the administration to resume accepting asylum claims from people regardless of where or how they enter country.
From CNN:
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point '"irreconcilably conflicts" with immigration law and the "expressed intent of Congress."
"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at "increased risk of violence and other harms at the border" if the administration's rule is allowed to go into effect.
The temporary restraining order is effective nationwide and will remain in effect until December 19, when the judge has scheduled another hearing, or further order of the court.
The challenge against Trump's move to bar people from claiming asylum outside of designated points of entry, like border checkpoints, said the administration was violating both the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so.
Immigrant rights groups praised the ruling.
"This ban is illegal, will put people's lives in danger and raises the alarm about President Trump's disregard for separation of powers," said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, which along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights had challenged the president. "There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry."
"This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump's war on asylum seekers," Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. "While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand."
From Your Site Articles
Saying the President Donald Trump had exceeded his presidential authority, a federal judge later Monday ruled against the president's attempt to restrict the abilities of refugees seeking asylum at the U.S. border and imposed a restraining order that directs the administration to resume accepting asylum claims from people regardless of where or how they enter country.
From CNN:
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said that a policy announced November 9 barring asylum for immigrants who enter outside a legal check point '"irreconcilably conflicts" with immigration law and the "expressed intent of Congress."
"Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Tigar wrote, adding that asylum seekers would be put at "increased risk of violence and other harms at the border" if the administration's rule is allowed to go into effect.
The temporary restraining order is effective nationwide and will remain in effect until December 19, when the judge has scheduled another hearing, or further order of the court.
The challenge against Trump's move to bar people from claiming asylum outside of designated points of entry, like border checkpoints, said the administration was violating both the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act by doing so.
Immigrant rights groups praised the ruling.
"This ban is illegal, will put people's lives in danger and raises the alarm about President Trump's disregard for separation of powers," said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, which along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights had challenged the president. "There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry."
"This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump's war on asylum seekers," Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. "While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand."
From Your Site Articles
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.