Major (and long overdue) change to asylum rules coming

[glenn1]

The law sets out the legal standard for what is a 'safe place' and it is pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement that establishes it as such. We have one of those agreements with Canada but not with Mexico or these other countries. Therefore, this rule is not in compliance with federal law.

And the definition of "agreement" is basically anything the AG says it is. Again I've quoted and linked the actual law, why are you (wrongly) trying to argue against how it works? Just admit you're talking out your ass about how you wish it would be rather than what the plain letter of the actual law says?

 

[fskimospy]

And the definition of "agreement" is basically anything the AG says it is.

Haha, good luck with that. I'll be sure to revisit this thread when the first court blocks this.

 

[glenn1]

What part about the law saying it's not reviewable by court do you not understand?

(3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

 

[K1052]

It's funny watching people like @fskimospy who don't know what the law actually says try to explain how this will all go down. Protip - that agreement doesn't require a treaty and could easily be informal and applied based upon judgement of Attorney General. Which BTW is exempt from judicial review per the law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

(2)Exceptions

(A)Safe third country
Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement, to a country (other than the country of the alien’s nationality or, in the case of an alien having no nationality, the country of the alien’s last habitual residence) in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and where the alien would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection, unless the Attorney General finds that it is in the public interest for the alien to receive asylum in the United States.

<snip>

(3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).




Read the law (I've posted it above). Not only is it legal, it's not reviewable by courts.

The US has no such agreement with Mexico who has refused, thus far, US demands for one.

 

[fskimospy]

What part about the law saying it's not reviewable by court do you not understand?

(3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

Well then you'll have a slam dunk in the courts, I'm sure, haha.

It will be interesting to see your shock, disbelief, and rage when the courts block this.

 

[glenn1]

The US has no such agreement with Mexico who has refused, thus far, US demands for one.

AG will determine the existing "remain in Mexico" policy qualifies per Paragraph 2 and as already stated his decision isn't reviewable by courts.

 

[Moonbeam]

Correct. As in clamping down on mass migration into the United States.

These people pass through Mexico. They can safely stay in Mexico.

As with all forms of correct, it is how you present the issue to yourself that determines it's apparent moral validity. Here you assume that the issue IS mass migration, that mass migration is bad and that keeping asylum seekers out is the way to deal with it.

You could just as easily propose toppling the government of Guatemala, for example, installing a democratic government of law, and find new water sources so that farmers can grow food again. People are leaving because food doesn't grow there any more and corruption and gangs are one way to survive.

We could take all who come, train and arm them and send them back to retake their countries from the banana government that are now in place. More than one way to skin a cat.

 

[glenn1]

Well then you'll have a slam dunk in the courts, I'm sure, haha.

It will be interesting to see your shock, disbelief, and rage when the courts block this.

Yeah, it would cause a constitutional crisis if the courts even accepted the case so your optimism is sadly misplaced.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, it would cause a constitutional crisis if the courts even accepted the case so your optimism is sadly misplaced.

You should probably gird your loins for the shock of a constitutional crisis then.

 

[Moonbeam]

and that would satisfy our treaty obligations.

Man does not live by treaty obligations alone. Some people suffer when others are in pain and will sacrifice to help them. And some will not only just give their shirt but their coat. You have to account for the wishes of people with empathy even if they seem strange and insane to you. Everybody should realize that insane people see sane people as crazy with no real ability to distinguish one from the other. One thing for sure though is that arrogant people won't have any problems here.

 

[Jhhnn]

The law sets out the legal standard for what is a 'safe place' and it is pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement that establishes it as such. We have one of those agreements with Canada but not with Mexico or these other countries. Therefore, this rule is not in compliance with federal law.

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Fuck them icky brown poors! Send 'em back to the American owned plantation of the Northern Triangle! Bring back the fugitive slave act!

 

[glenn1]

You should probably gird your loins for the shock of a constitutional crisis then.

Nah, I think SCOTUS can simply refer to Article 3 Section 2 of their constitution to realize this is part of the "with such exceptions" part since this law isn't about ambassadors or a U.S. state where they have original jurisdiction.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


I'd say this pretty clearly falls into the "exceptions that Congress shall make" category:

(3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

 

[K1052]

Lol "it says in the law that the decision is not subject to judicial review so checkmate libtards!"

Go stand up in front of a judge and say that.

 

[fskimospy]

Nah, I think SCOTUS can simply refer to Article 3 Section 2 of their constitution to realize this is part of the "with such exceptions" part since this law isn't about ambassadors or a U.S. state where they have original jurisdiction.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

I'd say this pretty clearly falls into the "exceptions that Congress shall make" category:

(3)Limitation on judicial review No court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the Attorney General under paragraph (2).

Like I said, it will be interesting to see your shock and rage when the first court blocks this rule.

 

[glenn1]

Lol "it says in the law that the decision is not subject to judicial review so checkmate libtards!"

Go stand up in front of a judge and say that.

Yes, they will. And they'll win.

 

[fskimospy]

Lol "it says in the law that the decision is not subject to judicial review so checkmate libtards!"

Go stand up in front of a judge and say that.

He seems to think that if a law says the AGs determination can't be reviewed by the courts it frees the AG from having to comply with the law at all, as his decision is unreviewable.

Let's just say I doubt the courts will find that argument persuasive.

 

[K1052]

Yes, they will. And they'll win.

Given the whole intent here is to run around the agreements/treaties that the US already has in place and decades of precedent I'm somewhat skeptical

But you do you.

 

[glenn1]

He seems to think that if a law says the AGs determination can't be reviewed by the courts it frees the AG from having to comply with the law at all, as his decision is unreviewable.

Let's just say I doubt the courts will find that argument persuasive.

It doesn't matter what the courts find persusive. The Congress is expressly given the power by the constitution to make exceptions to what's reviewable by courts. This law contains such an exception. It literally will not even get accepted by a court because the court has no constitutional authority to hear it. I'm sorry you dislike the fact the law was written that way, or that the constitution expressly allows it, but that's the reality of things as they are not your wishful thinking. The court isn't going to rule that a provision of the constitution is unconstitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Given the whole intent here is to run around the agreements/treaties that the US already has in place and decades of precedent I'm somewhat skeptical

But you do you.

He apparently believes that by inserting that one single line that Congress abolished the entirety of US asylum law and made it 'whatever the AG wants'.

 

[glenn1]

He apparently believes that by inserting that one single line that Congress abolished the entirety of US asylum law and made it 'whatever the AG wants'.

That's what the law says dumbass. It literally reads "if the AG determines."

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement

 

[fskimospy]

It doesn't matter what the courts find persusive. The Congress is expressly given the power to make exceptions to what's reviewable by courts. This law contains such an exception. It literally will not even get accepted by a court because the court has no constitutional authority to hear it. I'm sorry you dislike the fact the law was written that way, or that the constitution expressly allows it, but that's the reality of things as they are not your wishful thinking.

It most certainly does matter what the courts find persuasive, haha. As to what the reality of things are I'm sure we will find out quite soon if a court will accept it or not and I suspect you're going to be baffled and enraged when they do.

I hope once that happens you'll take a step back and think if you were so wrong about something you were so confident about that the rest of your reading of the law might be similarly flawed.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

On the surface it is the right thing. Basically if you travel thru Mexico which has been deemed a safe asylum place, you need to apply for asylum there. Then if you chose apply for legal immigration into the US.
Here are the failure points, nobody is going to willingly chose Mexico when the US is an option.
The President will need Mexico’s cooperation to make this work. President Trump burned that bridge.
I’m a pretty liberal guy and I totally understand what the President is trying to accomplish. I also am a manager and I can see all the signs of sloppy planning and failure written all over this half assed plan.

 

[K1052]

He apparently believes that by inserting that one single line that Congress abolished the entirety of US asylum law and made it 'whatever the AG wants'.

IT SAYS "NOT REVIEWABLE" YOUR HONOR. The defense rests.

lol

 

[fskimospy]

That's what the law says dumbass. It literally reads "if the AG determines."

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an alien if the Attorney General determines that the alien may be removed, pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement

Well okay then! Sounds like you've got a slam dunk!

You're going to be so, so mad when it doesn't go the way you think it should.

 

[glenn1]

IT SAYS "NOT REVIEWABLE" YOUR HONOR. The defense rests.

lol

If you're going to imagine that SCOTUS holds part of the constitution (Art 3, Sec 2) unconstitutional then we might as well just imagine they hold the entire constitution to be unconstitutional and bring back slavery or something.