ACLU files lawsuit against Trump Admin over asylum

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-asylum-aclu-lawsuit/

What do you think about this issue?

Who will win? Why?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-asylum-aclu-lawsuit/

What do you think about this issue?

Who will win? Why? Originally Posted by HDGristle

Trump wins because he has the authority as Commander in Chief to close the border and over 50% of all asylum seekers get rejected. and they are violating International law by not applying for asylum at the first safe haven they reach. yet they march all the way from South America and Mexico to file for asylum in the US. a clear violation of law.


Trump is the president of law and order and he has the constitutional authority to halt immigration. he won't be the first president to do so.

Non citizens do not have constitutional rights

Non citizens do not have constitutional rights Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

They haven't scrubbed that yet. Try again

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00001262/

They haven't scrubbed that yet. Try again

https://constitution.congress.gov/br...ALDE_00001262/ Originally Posted by HDGristle

Fail. your article refers to legal applicants. anyone who knowingly lies to gain asylum is committing a crime and forfeits any right to asylum. as you have posted before .. yes?


are you ignoring international law about safe haven? is it your contention that America is the only safe haven?


good luck with that

Fail. your article refers to legal applicants. anyone who knowingly lies to gain asylum is committing a crime and forfeits any right to asylum. as you have posted before .. yes?


are you ignoring international law about safe haven? is it your contention that America is the only safe haven?


good luck with that Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

its not a article is a 1903 USSC decision that stated a legal alien can't be deported. Sucks because all of the illegal's are just that illegal guess they have due process to go back.

You didn't read, Waco. I wasn't even talking to you. His statement is false.

Before we even get to lawful or unlawful aliens, he's wrong on the basis of U.S. non-citizen nationals. They are non-citizens. They have constitutional rights.

Then, that addresses lawful and unlawful and the varying protections for illegal aliens

Non citizens do not have constitutional rights Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

You didn't read, Waco. I wasn't even talking to you. His statement is false.

Before we even get to lawful or unlawful aliens, he's wrong on the basis of U.S. Nationals. They are non-citizens. They have constitutional rights.

Then, that addresses lawful and unlawful anf the varying protections for illegal aliens Originally Posted by HDGristle

see above. UC is right and so am i.


be interesting to see what far left think tank nonsense you come up with that shows where non-citizens have constitutional rights in the USA

Some civics lessons are in order, I see.

Also, I'm still focused on his error... that you seem compelled to want to double down on and own as well for some reason

Some civics lessons are in order, I see.

Also, I'm still focused on his error... that you seem compelled to want to double down on and own as well for some reason Originally Posted by HDGristle

this is you posting that there is no automatic asylum claim .. yes?

oh snap you though i forgot about that .. nope.

and you aren't wrong .. right?

This is an important clarification. Here's why.

Encounters include apprehensions AND expulsions.

These are generally

1. people temporarily in CBP custody, and given a court date for their asylum claim to be adjudicated (apprehensions)

AND

2. people who were denied entry and returned to either their home country or last country of transit (expulsions)

If someone shows up and is removed today and returns tomorrow, that's 2 encounters (explusions). Not 2 separate people. If they're removed and try to or do return illegally they are subject to a permanent ban.

Now let's focus on the apprehensions group. This will include admissible and inadmissible. Admissibles have an existing legal path today to enter. Inadmissibles do not, but can file an asylum claim. If they don't, they'll be removed. Those who do are documented aliens until their case is adjudicated. Many will be eligible to work temporarily. It could take 180 day or up to 7 years for these folks to be processed. If the asylum claim is denied, a removal order will be issued.

This link is helpful, but not gospel.

https://usafacts.org/articles/what-c...d-immigration/

This one on border recidivism is also interesting

https://usafacts.org/articles/border...der-crossings/

Now, Asylum claims.

Only about 18% of asylum claims today are heard and approved. Why?

A similar percentage of asylum claims are heard and denied? Wait, how? Those two numbers don't total anything close to 100%.

Those remaining cases fall into other buckets. 1 is that the asylum applicant has one or more other legal irons in the fire and the case is left unadjudicated while those other processes play out. One of those may be a Temporary Protected Status program enacted by the executive branch.

2. Are folks withdrew their cases formally. Most of these folks either found a different legal path, returned home or went elsewhere

3. Are those who didn't appear at their court date. This includes those who didn't formally withdraw but left. Those who were already deported/removed. And those who disappeared into the ether. This group is small. Removal orders will be in effect.


None of this speaks to refugees, who apply abroad.

Asylum claims occur at the border and is a legal means of immigrating, even if the initial entry was illegal.

And if you're still reading, there were only about 1.1 million asylum cases pending with the courts as of April 2024, and an additional 1.1 million pending with USCIS. If rejected by USCIS, most of those cases with be added to the immigration court docket. These are total cases. Not annual. Good perspective.

The apprehension rates are estimated about 75% under Trump and Biden.

There are just shy of 700 immigration judges today who are closing about 975 cases each per year. Backlogs under Trump increased by about 2.5x. Originally Posted by HDGristle

Waco. Sit back... breathe. You seem to having a phantom argument about post 2 still. I'm delighted you shared, buddy.

Post 3, as written, is false. Stop focusing on what you think it means or what was intended or how you want to apply it to the situation you're tunnel visioned on. I know why you think it's right, but alas, it's not.

Then think about what qualifiers are needed to make it correct.

see above. UC is right and so am i.


be interesting to see what far left think tank nonsense you come up with that shows where non-citizens have constitutional rights in the USA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The only constitutional right that a green card holder dose not have is the right to vote. Otherwise the same rights as you if you are a citizen.

The only constitutional right that a green card holder dose not have is the right to vote. Otherwise the same rights as you if you are a citizen. Originally Posted by Snafu412

We need to be tight with our language. Can a permanent resident be president? No. So only isn't accurate.

https://www.paultolandlaw.com/what-r...ve-in-the-u-s/


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/pol...mmigrants-have

Waco, there's something in that link for you too if you want to use it.

We need to be tight with our language

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/pol...mmigrants-have

Waco, there's something in that link for you too Originally Posted by HDGristle

I don't think there's nothing wrong with what I posted, green card holders are non-citizens. But I do see what you mean.
Carry on!

Server hang double. Disregard. Edits in 13