Major (and long overdue) change to asylum rules coming

[glenn1]

Finally the otherwise incompetent Trump admin is finally doing something correct. If you pass through several countries on your way to seek asylum in the U.S., then you don't have "credible fear," you're just an economic migrant. Unless and until you can prove "credible fear" in each and every single country you passed through then your asylum application to the U.S. should be summarily rejected with prejudice.

https://thehill.com/latino/453050-t...central-american-migrants-at-us-mexico-border

Trump to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants at US-Mexico border

The Trump administration is moving to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security announced Monday.

According to text of the rule set to publish in the Federal Register on Tuesday, asylum seekers who pass through another country before reaching the United States will be ineligible for asylum when they reach the southern border.

The move marks an acceleration in the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the number of migrants crossing the U.S. border with Mexico and has the potential to considerably reduce the number of asylum claims.


The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice announced the Interim Final Rule (IFR) in a joint statement Monday.

“The Departments are amending their respective regulations to provide that, with limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum,” states the text of the rule.

Under the rule, those who have been the victims of trafficking are granted exceptions. The rule also allows exceptions for migrants passing through countries that have not signed major international refugee treaties and for migrants who have been denied asylum in the countries they traveled through.

<snip>

 

[fskimospy]

The rule is almost certainly illegal and will be struck down by the courts pretty quickly I imagine.

 

[HomerJS]

You and the rest of the hypocritical assholes were ok with asylum from Cuba. In fact you were willing to take a child from his father because he wanted to take his son back.

Trump is fine with asylum from white countries but fuck those brown people who can't get us votes

 

[dainthomas]

St Reagan spent billions destroying those countries while supposedly fightin' the commies, and now repubs don't want to assume any responsibility for the situation. I'm shocked.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

What makes this change a good thing? Afraid for your life in your home country and want asylum? Stay there and apply. See what happens.

This rule completely undermines the entire purpose of asylum in the first place.

 

[fskimospy]

It's pretty simple, US law says we must accept any application for asylum except for those where the person transited a 'safe' country. What's a 'safe' country? As per the law, one where we have an explicit legal agreement with them to designate them as 'safe'. We do not have this with any of the countries these migrants are transiting through, therefore the US can't deny their asylum application.

If people would like to change that law they're welcome to try but they should be prepared to offer significant concessions in order to get that change made.

 

[K1052]

Like most ill informed and often illegal Trump administration policies this is doomed to failure either in the courts or by causing asylum seekers to just enter the country illegally and disappear into the fabric of the nation.

Much like harsh policies solved the drug problem they're going to fix this right up too.

 

[BoomerD]

Like most ill informed and often illegal Trump administration policies this is doomed to failure either in the courts or by causing asylum seekers to just enter the country illegally and disappear into the fabric of the nation.

Much like harsh policies solved the drug problem they're going to fix this right up too.

Could that be part of the plan...to help push Trump's wall?

 

[Moonbeam]

Finally the otherwise incompetent Trump admin is finally doing something correct.

Define correct. Surely this is just your opinion, one which I believe isn't all that widely shared.

 

[K1052]

Could that be part of the plan...to help push Trump's wall?

I think "plan" probably overstates substantially the process and intention here but the odds of Trump ever getting his wall money out of congress are effectively zero no matter what. He could have gotten it in 2017 either from the GOP congress or the deal he made (then idiotically broke) with Schumer. The window is closed IMO.

I'm sure however he sees this situation as a useful tool for the election but it's double edged since many people aren't in favor of the cruelties he's inflicting on basically powerless people, especially children.

 

[Jaskalas]

Define correct.

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

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

 

[cytg111]

"Beacon of Hope" my bare ass.
Set forth an example of how to govern.
How to democracy.
Collective of free men.
My bare ass.

You have to show the world why your model is better ... otherwise you are just another Putins Russia.
Step off.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's pretty simple, US law says we must accept any application for asylum except for those where the person transited a 'safe' country. What's a 'safe' country? As per the law, one where we have an explicit legal agreement with them to designate them as 'safe'. We do not have this with any of the countries these migrants are transiting through, therefore the US can't deny their asylum application.

If people would like to change that law they're welcome to try but they should be prepared to offer significant concessions in order to get that change made.

The language is actually quite vague on what constitutes a “safe nation”. The law states “pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.”

If Trump is able to negotiate an agreement with Mexico, that is all it would take.

You are seeing the same thing play out in Europe. Germany considers any EU nation and the entirety of the Balkans as safe. This is why Greece is bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis in Europe. This is also why a right wing government just won in Greece, fueled by nationalism and the unemployed youth vote.

 

[judasmachine]

What makes this change a good thing? Afraid for your life in your home country and want asylum? Stay there and apply. See what happens.

This rule completely undermines the entire purpose of asylum in the first place.

This is their goal.

 

[glenn1]

You and the rest of the hypocritical assholes were ok with asylum from Cuba. In fact you were willing to take a child from his father because he wanted to take his son back.

Trump is fine with asylum from white countries but fuck those brown people who can't get us votes

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.

 

[K1052]

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

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

No they can't. Mexico is not a safe place for migrants, certainly not the border towns that are controlled by the cartels.

Anybody who says this is either poorly informed or lying.

 

[1prophet]

You and the rest of the hypocritical assholes were ok with asylum from Cuba. In fact you were willing to take a child from his father because he wanted to take his son back.

Trump is fine with asylum from white countries but fuck those brown people who can't get us votes

Those Scandinavians looking for a better life and free healthcare,

Here is a list of most denied and accepted asylum seekers, Democrats got to do something about all those Egyptian and Ethiopian white people getting preferential treatment.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/world/us-asylum-denial-rates-by-nationality/index.html

Which nationalities get rejected the most for US asylum?

Story by Holly Yan, CNN
Graphic by Sean O'Key, CNN
Updated 6:22 PM ET, Thu May 3, 2018

(CNN)When a caravan of Central American migrants recently showed up at the US border, many wondered what their odds of getting asylum would be.
The answer: Slim, if history repeats itself.
A look at asylum denial rates show extreme variances between the nationalities of people applying.
Asylum:
A protected status that allows people fleeing persecution to live legally in another country.
And Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador -- the three countries represented in this caravan -- have among the highest US asylum denial rates, according to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.
But asylum seekers from Mexico and Haiti fared even worse.

On the flip side, some nationalities rarely have their asylum attempts turned down.
Why is this?
There's no simple answer, but there are definitely key factors.
"Country conditions always can have a big influence over whether you have legitimate grounds for asylum or not," TRAC co-director Susan B. Long said.
Another hugely important aspect is whether the asylum seeker has an attorney.
Nationalities with low denial rates for US asylum
Egypt:
11.1%
Ethiopia:
17.0%
Syria:
18.5%
China:
20.3%
Burkina Faso:
21.5%
These numbers reflect the rates of denial between FY 2012 and FY 2017.
Source: Syracuse University's TRAC
"Without representation, the deck is stacked against an asylum seeker," TRAC said.
In fact, "your odds are five times better to get asylum if you have an attorney," Long said.
Take, for example, China. Between October 2011 and September 2017, China had the highest number of total US asylum decisions (31,176) -- and one of the lowest denial rates (20.3%).
It's no surprise that more than 95% of those Chinese applicants had attorneys.
Other nationalities with low denial rates include Egypt, Ethiopia, Syria and Burkina Faso. All had attorney representation in more than 89% percent of cases decided in that time frame.
But those who show up for crucial interviews with neither an attorney nor English skills often get denied more.
"A lot don't have the resources to pay for it," Long said. "There are a lot of attorneys trying to be of pro bono assistance, but the need is great."

Without representation, the deck is stacked against an asylum seeker."
​

Of course, there are many factors US officials weigh when deciding whether to grant someone asylum, such as whether they have proof of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution due to race, religion, national origin, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
But "(t)here are no mandatory bars to establishing a credible fear or persecution or torture," US Citizenship and Immigration Services says.
Applying for asylum in the US takes, on average, 6 months and 2 interviews
Are there any reasons you might be denied for sure?
Yes. According to the Department of Homeland Security, you may not be granted asylum if:

• You have persecuted others based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion

• You have been convicted of a serious crime

• There are reasons for believing you committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States

• You have engaged in terrorist activity, are likely to engage in terrorist activity, have incited terrorist activity, or are a member or representative of a terrorist organization

• There are reasonable grounds to believe that you are a danger to the security of the United States

 

[Moonbeam]

Watching Trump, I have come to the conclusion that his intention isn't to fix anything but to constantly feed his base the idea that he is working on the problems that he has also told them are what are ruining their lives and keeping America from being like it was when white people weren't threatened by static incomes and declining decent wage blue collar job prospects. It's always about giving people somebody to blame rather than fixing anything. That would require higher taxes on the folk who have all the money, the people who buy and pay for the Republican party.

 

[glenn1]

No they can't. Mexico is not a safe place for migrants, certainly not the border towns that are controlled by the cartels.

Anybody who says this is either poorly informed or lying.

That's not the standard. Just being in a "not safe place" (even if we accept Mexico as being such for sake of argument, when in reality it's not) isn't grounds to seek asylum, you need to be fleeing actual persecution. Someone fleeing from actual persecution (which is actually very, very few people from the Northern Triangle almost all of whom are economic refugees) could be settled in the U.S. in the most dangerous urban ghetto imaginable and that would satisfy our treaty obligations.

 

[HomerJS]

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.

Go read the story of Elian Gonzales and see how Republicans tried to override law because this asylum benefited them politically.

 

[K1052]

That's not the standard. Just being in a "not safe place" (even if we accept Mexico as being such for sake of argument, when in reality it's not) isn't grounds to seek asylum, you need to be fleeing actual persecution. Someone fleeing from actual persecution (which is actually very, very few people from the Northern Triangle almost all of whom are economic refugees) could be settled in the U.S. in the most dangerous urban ghetto imaginable and that would satisfy our treaty obligations.

Northern Mexico, by any standard, is not safe relative to anywhere in the US. We don't have a "third safe country" agreement with Mexico so the whole argument is moot anyway. This is the administration trying to wish away practical, moral, and legal impediments while people like yourself try to rationalize it.

 

[glenn1]

Go read the story of Elian Gonzales and see how Republicans tried to override law because this asylum benefited them politically.

I'll do that after you look up the definition of "anecdote" and stop trying to apply them to a situation where it has no relevance like this one. CAA of 1966 clearly laid out the legal guidelines for Elian Gonzales to gain asylum. It has nothing to do with someone from Africa who travels to Nicaragua and then through multiple more countries on the way to the U.S. should plausibly be able to claim asylum in the U.S. As if their rival tribe from Rwanda or whatnot would journey along with them and attempt to kill them in Oaxaca state so literally the only place they'd be safe would be in the U.S., as if the same tribal rival who would kill them in Oaxaca would somehow refuse to follow them to Ohio.

 

[fskimospy]

The language is actually quite vague on what constitutes a “safe nation”. The law states “pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement.”

If Trump is able to negotiate an agreement with Mexico, that is all it would take.

You are seeing the same thing play out in Europe. Germany considers any EU nation and the entirety of the Balkans as safe. This is why Greece is bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis in Europe. This is also why a right wing government just won in Greece, fueled by nationalism and the unemployed youth vote.

Yes, if Trump enacted one of those agreements with Mexico or others that would bring this order in line with the law. I wouldn't hold my breath on that though, haha.

As it stands today though this is clearly illegal.

 

[glenn1]

Northern Mexico, by any standard, is not safe relative to anywhere in the US. We don't have a "third safe country" agreement with Mexico so the whole argument is moot anyway. This is the administration trying to wish away practical, moral, and legal impediments while people like yourself try to rationalize it.

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).

Yes, if Trump enacted one of those agreements with Mexico or others that would bring this order in line with the law. I wouldn't hold my breath on that though, haha.

As it stands today though this is clearly illegal.

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

 

[fskimospy]

That's not the standard. Just being in a "not safe place" (even if we accept Mexico as being such for sake of argument, when in reality it's not) isn't grounds to seek asylum, you need to be fleeing actual persecution. Someone fleeing from actual persecution (which is actually very, very few people from the Northern Triangle almost all of whom are economic refugees) could be settled in the U.S. in the most dangerous urban ghetto imaginable and that would satisfy our treaty obligations.

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.