Trump WINS Appeal Requiring Migrants To "Remain In Mexico"
Trump WINS Appeal Requiring Migrants To "Remain In Mexico." Once again there was a legal challenge to stop Donald Trump's "remain in mexico" program but once again Trump has won. In an unusual victory for Trump 'remain in mexico' remains and asylum claimants will be required to wait in Mexico while asylum claims are being processed.Conservatives argue that most asylum seekers do not qualify and many don't turn up for court "disappearing into the US." The left argues that we should expand asylum to cover more issues instead of certain protected classes.As migrant caravans continue to move toward the US the issue of the migrant crisis is gaining more attention with even the New York Times editorial board siding with Trump and telling Congress to give him the money he is asking for.With Trump decrying illegal immigration as a key issue for his past and upcoming campaigns this will be a huge victory toward the Trump agenda.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Trump administration has won its appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court to keep its Remain in Mexico program intact.
It used to be that when a migrant entered the U.S.
and then claimed asylum, they would be released into the United States as their claim was being processed.
Under this new rule, they'll have to remain in Mexico.
The Trump administration is also going to be imposing new restrictions and regulations for those seeking asylum entering the southern border.
Now, the ruling in the Ninth Circuit is actually kind of unusual because the court's considered to be pretty liberal.
In fact, Donald Trump has publicly criticized the court on more than one occasion over their past rulings.
At least in this instance, it seems that Trump has his victory.
But the problem of the migrant crisis is actually getting pretty serious, to the point where even the New York Times editorial board has called on Congress to give the White House the money they're asking for.
The amount of migrant apprehensions at the border is higher today than it's been in a very, very long time, record-setting numbers.
So it seems like the migrant crisis is a real issue, and it needs to be dealt with.
Today, let's take a look at this appeals court ruling, and we'll take a look at some of the new restrictions and regulations being imposed on asylum seekers at the southern border.
But before we get started, make sure you follow me on Mines at Mines.com slash TimCast.
I've done several videos about censorship, and I'm sure most of you are aware that they've kind of been ban-happy for a little while.
Mines is a good backup channel, and it's a pretty good platform, so follow me there.
I'm hoping to break 100,000 subscribers with your help.
I'm very close.
Now if you want to support this video, just share it on social media or hit that like button.
From the New York Times, the Trump administration can keep sending asylum seekers to Mexico court rules.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration can continue to enforce a policy that returns asylum seekers to Mexico while they wait for an immigration court to decide their case.
The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit allows the government to continue enforcing the policy, formerly called the Migration Protection Protocols, while the legal issues of the case are being decided.
It was an unusual victory for the Trump administration in the liberal-leaning court, though the judges did not rule on the merits of the case.
The story says that the Remain in Mexico program is intended to crack down on asylum claims, which have soared as Central American migrants have crossed the United States' southwestern border in ever larger numbers over the past year.
But forcing asylum applicants to remain in possibly dangerous conditions in Mexico represents
a major break from longstanding practice that permitted most migrants who requested asylum
to live in the U.S. while they awaited the outcome of their case.
The former Homeland Security Secretary who introduced the policy, Kirstjen Nielsen, has
said that many asylum applicants have skipped their court dates and disappeared into the
Legal advocates for migrants have denounced the policy, saying a spike in violence and overwhelmed shelters in Mexico border towns put the migrants at risk.
The Ninth Circuit Court's decision is devastating.
Subjecting vulnerable families to this program is inexcusable.
said Taylor Levy, an immigration lawyer in El Paso, who has escorted several migrants to court in recent weeks.
However, it seems that a three-judge panel concluded that allowing the policy to remain in place was not unreasonable, saying, The appeals court judge said.
States fear substantial injury upon returning to Mexico, but the likelihood of harm is reduced
somewhat by the Mexican government's commitment to honor its international law obligations
and to grant humanitarian status and work permits to individuals returned, the appeals
court judge said.
The story does point out, however, that a federal district judge in San Francisco, Richard
Seaborg, first ruled on April 8 to block the policy from taking effect, saying the law
did not authorize the Department of Homeland Security to enact it.
He also found the program lacked safeguards to ensure migrants were not returned to a place where they faced risk.
However, according to CBS News on April 13th, appeals court rules Trump's remain in Mexico policy can proceed for now.
So it seems like we have a pretty strange back and forth, with so far, Trump winning on more than one front.
And as for the claim by the judges that returning these migrants to Mexico may be safe, we see this story from the Wall Street Journal just today.
Mexico proposes redirecting U.S.
security aid to address migrant crisis.
The Wall Street Journal says, Mexican President André Manuel López Obrador wants to take the security aid his country receives from the U.S.
and use the money instead for a development plan for Central American and Southern Mexico to help stop migration.
While we are seeing an effort by the Mexican government to try and aid the migrant crisis, they say in the story that it is unlikely the U.S.
will redirect funds as Mr. Lopez Obrador would like.
In March, President Trump, blaming Central American countries for not doing enough to stop migration, said he would cut some $450 million of development and security aid to those countries.
Lopez Obrador is in a tough bind when you want to engage the US, and it's not where President Trump is.
Whether or not Mexico is able to redirect funds is not so much the point, as they are still trying to help many migrants with shelters and work permits, and because of that, the court has ruled it won't be unsafe for them to return to Mexico.
But there is another point brought up often by Trump supporters and those who support
the president's plan in this regard, and it's if the people are fleeing countries in Central
America, then they're not facing those same dangers in Mexico.
If there are particular groups in Honduras or Guatemala targeting them, they're going
to be safe in Mexico where they are while they wait.
And Mexico is offering many of these people jobs and a chance for a life in Mexico.
But the Trump administration is doing a lot more than just sending people back to Mexico.
According to the New York Times, asylum seekers face new restraints under latest Trump orders.
This story from just over a week ago says, President Trump on Monday ordered new restrictions on asylum seekers at the Mexican border.
including application fees and work permit restraints, and directed that cases in the already clogged immigration courts be settled within 180 days.
In a memo sent to Kevin McAleenan, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General William P. Barr, the President took another step to reshape asylum law, which is determined by Congress from the White House.
The New York Times quotes Trump as saying, The purpose of this memorandum is to strengthen asylum procedures to safeguard our system against rampant abuse of our asylum process.
It goes on to say, The memo did not make clear how the plans would be carried
out in immigration courts.
More than 800,000 cases are pending, with an average wait time of almost two years.
The Trump administration added to that backlog when it directed immigration authorities to reopen thousands of nonviolent
removal cases.
The memo specifically called for the authorities to set a fee for asylum seekers filing their claims and for their
work permit applications.
Many people on the right argue that most of these asylum cases are fraudulent and that people just want to be released into the U.S.
and then they disappear and they don't attend court.
Though you have many people on the left arguing that if someone needs asylum, we can't restrict that.
It's a very challenging system, but what is true is that the amount of migrants trying to enter the U.S.
has been escalating rather dramatically.
So much so, that the New York Times issued an editorial statement siding with the White House, telling Congress to give them the money they need to help solve this problem.
In a story that I personally found kind of shocking, the New York Times writes this, Congress, give Trump his border money.
No, it's not for building the wall.
And this is by the editorial board.
They say, The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor, and the publisher.
It is separate from the newsroom and the op-ed section.
The story starts by saying that Trump is right.
There is a crisis at the southern border, just not the one he rants about.
There is no pressing national security threat, no invasion of murderers, drug cartels, or terrorists.
No matter how often Mr. Trump delivers such warnings, they bear little resemblance to the truth.
But as record numbers of Central American families flee violence and poverty in their homelands, They are overwhelming United States border systems, fueling a humanitarian crisis of overcrowding, disease, and chaos.
The Border Patrol is now averaging 1,200 daily arrests, with many migrants arriving exhausted and sick.
Last week, a teenage boy from Guatemala died in government custody, the third death of a minor since December.
As resources are strained and the system buckles, the misery grows.
They say something needs to be done soon.
Unfortunately, Political gamesmanship once again threatens to hold up desperately needed resources.
The story says the White House sent Congress a request for $4.5 billion in emergency funding to help manage this surge.
But they point out that for the Democrats, it's a non-starter.
They go on to say that because several hundred million dollars would go towards shoring up border security operations managed by ICE, this, for Democrats, is a non-starter.
The New York Times does definitely bring up a lot of really important points, and it is fascinating to see that they are siding with the White House on this issue, But they do bring up other really important issues which need to be kind of fleshed out.
For one, they say people are fleeing violence and poverty.
Poverty is not a reason for you to seek asylum.
In fact, according to the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, they say, every year people come to the U.S.
seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, political opinion.
On the Wikipedia page for asylum in the U.S., they say, So yes, there are many people fleeing violence.
First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their
home country.
Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one
of five protected grounds—race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular
social group.
So yes, there are many people fleeing violence.
But if it's violence related to something outside of those categories, you are not eligible
for asylum.
Many people are fleeing gang violence.
Gangs want them to join.
That may be protected because it is a particular social group.
However, poverty would not be covered.
If you're fleeing your country simply because you're poor, then you will not be eligible for asylum.
So there is the problem, then, that some people may claim asylum falsely and then try and just enter the country.
It's a serious problem.
I don't know what the right answer is.
What I do know is we have a serious fight, and even the New York Times has said, give Trump the money he needs.
We need to figure out how to deal with the migrant crisis because the amount of people coming into this country has been increasing rather dramatically.
There are more people being detained now in the first five months of the year than for the entirety of last year, and it seems like it's just going up.
The New York Times pointed out 1,200 people per day.
Something bad is happening.
We need to make sure we don't encourage people to take long, dangerous journeys where they end up sick, dehydrated, and possibly even dying.
So far under the policy, around 1,500 people have been returned to Mexico.
The story from the New York Times says that Mexican officials have said that while they
disagree with the policy, which they have described as a unilateral decision by the
Trump administration, they would accept the asylum seekers, protect their rights,
and allow them to lawfully remain in Mexico while their cases wind through the American courts.
They also add, the returned asylum seekers are granted multiple entry visas,
enabling them to travel to the U.S. to attend court and then return to Mexico.
Asylum cases can take two years to be completed.
The challenge for me in this debate is that unless the Democrats come forward with a plan,
something that actually makes sense, instead of calling it racist or immoral,
I don't know what else to say.
All I know right now is that the Mexican government is doing what they can to help these migrants and asylum seekers, and the Trump administration is making them wait in Mexico.
What else is there?
Like I mentioned earlier, we need to make sure we're not incentivizing people to go on dangerous journeys and hurt themselves if they don't qualify for asylum.
Of course, there's an argument from the left that we should expand asylum to cover those who are poor or otherwise don't qualify for asylum.
I'm not going to make that argument.
I'm just going to tell you what I think and what's going on, and we'll leave it there.
But you can let me know what you think in the comments below, and we'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Mines at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4 p.m.
Eastern.
And I'll have more videos for you on my second channel, YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, starting at 6 p.m.
