Major (and long overdue) change to asylum rules coming

[glenn1]

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.

Translation: "I don't like what the actual law or constitution says, so I @fskimospy are going to create my own reality where those pesky facts don't exist."

 

[Jhhnn]

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).

Which is, in itself, likely unconstitutional. The notion that any law is not subject to judicial review is absurd.

 

[fskimospy]

Translation: "I don't like what the actual law or constitution says, so I @fskimospy are going to create my own reality where those pesky facts don't exist."

Nope, I'm simply stating my belief on how the courts will rule. According to you they won't even accept the case so if your interpretation is correct we will find out in the very near future. I'll be perfectly willing to say I was wrong if the courts refuse to even take the case. Will you come here and post that you were wrong if they do?

 

[glenn1]

Which is, in itself, likely unconstitutional. The notion that any law is not subject to judicial review is absurd.

Again, already covered. See Article 3 section 2 as I've quoted here repeatedly. You'd have to find part of the constitution itself unconstitutional to find that adding this provision was not constitutional. Bad politics or ill-advised could be argued, but not unconstitutional.

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.

Nope, I'm simply stating my belief on how the courts will rule. According to you they won't even accept the case so if your interpretation is correct we will find out in the very near future. I'll be perfectly willing to say I was wrong if the courts refuse to even take the case. Will you come here and post that you were wrong if they do?

If they do then we should all be very afraid because as I said the courts will have just ruled the constitution itself is unconstitutional. That's not a place you want to be, even to give a few economic migrants an express lane to the U.S. You are actually advocating for an absolute tyranny of the judiciary if you got your way. And given the current composition of the courts that's not something you want to do.

 

[K1052]

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.

wut

 

[K1052]

Again, already covered. See Article 3 section 2 as I've quoted here repeatedly. You'd have to find part of the constitution itself unconstitutional to find that adding this provision was not constitutional. Bad politics or ill-advised could be argued, but not unconstitutional.

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.

Are you high?

 

[glenn1]

Are you high?

Are you illiterate?

 

[interchange]

Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 actually required asylum seekers to apply from Cuba at the embassy in Havana. People fleeing Cuba and caught offshore were refused entry, see the "wet foot, dry foot" policy.

Because they were not in the US, there was no claim of asylum possible. Since they never made it to the US and didn't go through another country, this is a different scenario than Central American asylum seekers traveling through Mexico. Technically they weren't forced to apply for asylum in Havana. They were forced to apply for refugee status. I think any change that denies summarily the opportunity for these people to get asylum in the US needs to be counterbalanced with greater help for appropriate applicants to become refugees instead.

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.

You are reading this wrong. The Attorney General has unchallengeable power to remove an alien to a safe third Country with an asylum process or equivalent temporary protection as an alternative to asylum in the US. They do not have power to determine what makes another country safe. The law is explicit in requiring a bilateral or multilateral agreement to establish this. Since no agreement with Mexico exists, and the Attorney General deciding there should be one without agreement would be unilateral, they can't do this. I agree that the law is not explicit in stating what could constitute such an agreement, but that is irrelevant when nothing exists.

 

[K1052]

Are you illiterate?

That's a ballsy question to ask when you are posting seemingly random arguments asserting legal opinions entirely divorced from...like the entire history of US jurisprudence.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, already covered. See Article 3 section 2 as I've quoted here repeatedly. You'd have to find part of the constitution itself unconstitutional to find that adding this provision was not constitutional. Bad politics or ill-advised could be argued, but not unconstitutional.

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.




If they do then we should all be very afraid because as I said the courts will have just ruled the constitution itself is unconstitutional. That's not a place you want to be, even to give a few economic migrants an express lane to the U.S. You are actually advocating for an absolute tyranny of the judiciary if you got your way. And given the current composition of the courts that's not something you want to do.

So, uhh, you're arguing that the AG isn't a "public minister"? Really?

 

[sandorski]

Ironically, the nations these people are fleeing are fully backed by the US Government. Perhaps the US could expend their energy towards helping fix these nations instead of Venezuela or Iran? You can solve 2 issues, the Humanitarian crisis these people face and the issue of so many seeking Asylum at the US border.

 

[fskimospy]

If they do then we should all be very afraid because as I said the courts will have just ruled the constitution itself is unconstitutional. That's not a place you want to be, even to give a few economic migrants an express lane to the U.S. You are actually advocating for an absolute tyranny of the judiciary if you got your way. And given the current composition of the courts that's not something you want to do.

It could be that I'm advocating tyranny of the judiciary but it's more likely that I'm saying you don't understand the law and it has never worked like you think it's going to work.

So to repeat, if the courts refuse to hear this I will absolutely admit to being wrong. If the courts DO agree to hear this case will you admit to your understanding being wrong or will you declare it a judicial coup?

 

[Jhhnn]

Ironically, the nations these people are fleeing are fully backed by the US Government. Perhaps the US could expend their energy towards helping fix these nations instead of Venezuela or Iran? You can solve 2 issues, the Humanitarian crisis these people face and the issue of so many seeking Asylum at the US border.

Trump & the GOP don't solve problems. they exploit problems for political gain.

 

[glenn1]

It could be that I'm advocating tyranny of the judiciary but it's more likely that I'm saying you don't understand the law and it has never worked like you think it's going to work.

So to repeat, if the courts refuse to hear this I will absolutely admit to being wrong. If the courts DO agree to hear this case will you admit to your understanding being wrong or will you declare it a judicial coup?

It would be a judicial coup if they ignored Art 3 Sec 2. Unsure why this is even a question here.

Even as a thought experiment we said that no appellate review happened and SCOTUS review did (as "original jurisdiction") what exactly would be the basis for SCOTUS to rule the law unconstitutional? Thousands of other laws likewise delegate authority to some executive official to make their determination for when some exception or part of the law applies. Would you throw out the ability of the legislature to delegate these powers to the executive just to help a few hundred thousand economic migrants? That would be the ultra-extreme version of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[BoomerD]

Trump & the GOP don't solve problems. they create and exploit problems for political gain.

Ftfy

 

[fskimospy]

It would be a judicial coup if they ignored Art 3 Sec 2. Unsure why this is even a question here.

Even as a thought experiment we said that no appellate review happened and SCOTUS review did (as "original jurisdiction") what exactly would be the basis for SCOTUS to rule the law unconstitutional? Thousands of other laws likewise delegate authority to some executive official to make their determination for when some exception or part of the law applies. Would you throw out the ability of the legislature to delegate these powers to the executive just to help a few hundred thousand economic migrants? That would be the ultra-extreme version of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I'm not doing any of those things, I think the courts will simply rule that this action is incompatible with federal law. I don't care who this action affects, we all have an interest in the executive branch following the law.

You seem to think that one line in makes it so that the AG doesn't need to comply with any part of all the asylum law Congress has written if he doesn't feel like it. I suspect you will come to learn that you're badly mistaken on that front.

 

[IronWing]

It would be a judicial coup if they ignored Art 3 Sec 2. Unsure why this is even a question here.

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.

The Constitution doesn't say what you say it says. The clause concerning Congress' power to create exceptions and regulations refers to the whether the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction. In no way does this clause provide Congress with the power to pass laws beyond judicial review.

 

[glenn1]

I'm not doing any of those things, I think the courts will simply rule that this action is incompatible with federal law. I don't care who this action affects, we all have an interest in the executive branch following the law.

You seem to think that one line in makes it so that the AG doesn't need to comply with any part of all the asylum law Congress has written if he doesn't feel like it. I suspect you will come to learn that you're badly mistaken on that front.

He doesn't need to comply with the rest of the asylum law because Congress literally wrote in exceptions to "the rest" of the asylum law and delegated the authority to the AG to determine when those exceptions apply. Even with your hugely advanced level of motivated partisan thinking I'm baffled why you seem to want to ignore those exceptions in the law exist as I've quoted them here repeatedly. Your argument basically comes down to "it was a bad idea for Congress to have delegated that authority in the law since an AG under a POTUS like Trump might use that authority in a way I disagree with." That's not a constitutional problem with the law.

 

[fskimospy]

He doesn't need to comply with the rest of the asylum law because Congress literally wrote in exceptions to "the rest" of the asylum law and delegated the authority to the AG to determine when those exceptions apply. Even with your hugely advanced level of motivated partisan thinking I'm baffled why you seem to want to ignore those exceptions in the law exist as I've quoted them here repeatedly. Your argument basically comes down to "it was a bad idea for Congress to have delegated that authority in the law since an AG under a POTUS like Trump might use that authority in a way I disagree with." That's not a constitutional problem with the law.

Well then I'm sure your victory in the courts will be swift and total. Again, it will be interesting to see your confusion and rage when this does not happen.

 

[sandorski]

Trump & the GOP don't solve problems. they exploit problems for political gain.

Indeed, just thought someone might be interested in an actual solution. I'm naive though, kinda like Marianne Williamson, except I'll refrain from just posting "LOVE! <3" as the solution....

 

[Jhhnn]

It would be a judicial coup if they ignored Art 3 Sec 2. Unsure why this is even a question here.

Even as a thought experiment we said that no appellate review happened and SCOTUS review did (as "original jurisdiction") what exactly would be the basis for SCOTUS to rule the law unconstitutional? Thousands of other laws likewise delegate authority to some executive official to make their determination for when some exception or part of the law applies. Would you throw out the ability of the legislature to delegate these powers to the executive just to help a few hundred thousand economic migrants? That would be the ultra-extreme version of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You're easily gaslit when it's something you want to hear, just like with the census citizenship question. Is the AG a public minister, or not? Of course he is.

Beyond that, the law states that a bilateral agreement must exist for the AG to declare another country to be a safe haven. I very seriously doubt Mexico will agree to such a thing.

 

[glenn1]

You're easily gaslit when it's something you want to hear, just like with the census citizenship question. Is the AG a public minister, or not? Of course he is.

Beyond that, the law states that a bilateral agreement must exist for the AG to declare another country to be a safe haven. I very seriously doubt Mexico will agree to such a thing.

I'd argue the "Remain in Mexico" agreement is already a qualified "bilateral agreement." Since the law doesn't define what constitutes an agreement the AG could determine to be allowable, I highly doubt that SCOTUS second guesses the AG's judgement if he likewise holds "Stay in Mexico" to qualify for purposes of Section (2) exception.

 

[jackstar7]

So is the gist of this thread that racists are excited?

 

[dainthomas]

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.

All they have to do is go to the SC and say "Something something blah blah Voting Rights Act" and Justice Bart will be all like "sounds good to me bro!" before he shotguns a Natty lite. Checkmate lefties!

 

[Vic]

Ironically, the nations these people are fleeing are fully backed by the US Government. Perhaps the US could expend their energy towards helping fix these nations instead of Venezuela or Iran? You can solve 2 issues, the Humanitarian crisis these people face and the issue of so many seeking Asylum at the US border.

But then Trump wouldn't have this manufactured crisis to motivate his voter base with!