Judge Orders the Un-Deportation of People With Bogus Asylum Claims
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, photo from uscourts.gov.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the same guy that hammered Michael Flynn, added a roadblock to the the Trump Administration’s efforts to turn away bogus asylum seekers. The judge opined that Congress, not the president, determines the standards required for asylum… As if President Trump’s legal team didn’t review the policy before it was implemented. This has the appearance of judicial activism.
From The Washington Times:
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan — who a day earlier had excoriated former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — ordered the government to allow migrants with iffy claims to be given a full chance to make their case for asylum.
And he ordered the U.S. to un-deport plaintiffs in the case who already had been ousted under the new policy, saying they deserve to be brought back and allowed to claim asylum.
“Because it is the will of Congress — not the whims of the executive — that determines the standard for expedited removal, the court finds that those policies are unlawful,” Judge Sullivan wrote.
His decision overturns a move by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had tried to block asylum claims of migrants who said they faced gang violence or domestic abuse back home.
Mr. Sessions had argued that while traumatic, those reasons strayed far from the political or religious persecution by governments that traditionally made someone eligible for asylum.
Also within the article, the White House’s response:
“Today’s ruling is only the latest example of judicial activism that encourages migrants to take dangerous risks; empowers criminal organizations that spread turmoil in our hemisphere; and undermines the laws, borders, Constitution, and sovereignty of the United States,” – Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
You can read more here.
Category: Politics
“…the court finds that those policies are unlawful.” I always get a kick out of that–the court. It is, of course, a way of detaching the individual decision maker, a lawyer in a black robe who has a name, from the decision. It depersonalizes the decision, creating the appearance that there is an omniscient thing called “the court” which delivers rulings unaffected and uninfluenced by bias, prejudice, and current events.
This is just wrong on many levels. It’s not true, of course, and puts American citizens in jeopardy. And if we need more justification, we simply can’t afford it. You’d think somebody out there wants more Americans dead, the country bankrupted, and doesn’t care at all about the truth.
We have been functioning for years with fiat money, backed by ‘good faith’ or some such crap. Well, it doesn’t matter ( /s ) b/c we’re never going to pay off the debt unless we have hyperinflation like that in post WW1 Germany. If these asylum cities and states are so keen on helping these people, send them there. Charter enough buses to haul them to San Francisco or Sacramento. They can raise taxes even higher to give them free shit for life.
But, but, the children, diversity, feel their pain, they just want jobs, blah, blah, blah.
Fuck. These. People.
One unelected black robed judge gets to make immigration law for the entire country?
No.
And yet, he’s also the one who decided Hillary Clinton needed to answer additional questions about her e-mails under oath:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-federal-court-ordered-hillary-clinton-to-answer-additional-email-questions-under-oath/
He undeported a woman and her child last August, too, so this isn’t new. If he makes a decision based on law, not a fanciful reading of it, then I take no issue with the decision. That’s why God made appellate court ladders. As for his Wide Load decision, she has finally fell into disfavor with the Left as the Left hopes we conservatives will with Trump. The lawyer in the black robe recently went off the deep end in a scheduled sentencing hearing for General Flynn, all but calling him a traitor. That was uncalled for and a personal, not a legal, opinion and evidences a lack of what is called judicial temperament.
Yeah, apparently Judges cannot read, specifically 8USC 1182 recently upheld by SCOTUS in regards to the travel ban:
“Suspension of entry or imposition, restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Since he (not the court) says it is Congress’s job, maybe we should hand them the job of reviewing the applications. House committee for review of asylum applications.
The good judge here forgets that this was a policy change in 2014 (or was it ’15) by the former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, not congress, that Trump’s policy changed back to what it had been.
Letting one president gaze into the crystal ball and decide they can see the real intent of congress is the slippery slope that at some point your guy isn’t going to be in the driver’s seat. So you can’t let one do it and not the next.
Another example (IMO) of the “Deep State” entrenched enemies of our country doing whatever they can to continue the left’s march to destroy this country. It is not just elected critters we need to concern ourselves with, it is these appointed, for life, and civil service parasites sucking the life blood out.
These people and their ilk are a clear and present danger to the American Republic that we all have defended and love. They are patient in their waiting as they continue to destroy us from within. Be aware…Be very aware.
Our elected representatives have freely given up their powers to unelected bureaucrats by giving them regulatory powers and to the judicial branch.
More Judicial Activism from the left which wants to turn the USA into a backwater third world shithole.
Another delaying tactic that will be corrected by a SCOTUS decision.
If nothing else a great many Americans are now seeing the “justice” system for what it really is, a bunch of people making decisions they claim are based on law, but more often than not are just a contortion of a single phrase or two to get the outcome they think is appropriate based on their politics.
When judges are jailed for taking money from private prisons to sentence people to maximum sentences for increased profits it’s a pretty safe bet there’s something wrong with the system as it currently operates.
My favorite part of the Trump presidency is the scattering of cockroaches to the light switch being turned on and revealing just how large the problem has been for so long, hidden there in the dark.
Whether you love Trump or hate him, the revelation of the number of people thinking themselves the ruling elite who are firmly entrenched in all levels of government should make people think that a smaller government that fears us is far better than the reverse.
guys guys guys….hold up a few. he’s not *totally* off-base here, but bear with me a little. the whole thing is based in the INA (immigration and naturalization act of 1952) and it is congressionally written law, not an executive order. asylum seekers are, and have always been, a certain protected class within those laws by virtue of their attempt to escape certain conditions in their countries. in fact, while I was in the immigration academy, those cases are specifically mentioned as needing to be vetted/investigated by specially trained agents. it’s not out of line, and I actually agree with where I think he’s going. to wit: giving those officers the time to look into whether or not the claim is spurious allows for a more complete, correct decision. denying a legitimate claim based on its timing is not a good policy. coming up alone may may one a target, but disguising yourself in a mass of people makes it easier to make your case and avoid the spotlight. since the vast majority of claims are economic hardship, they wouldn’t qualify as an asylum claim worth pursuing. they will be turned away accordingly. BUT, if, hidden away in this group, is a legitimate asylum claim coming from one who has reason, it should be heard. let’s look at it in a more military context, considering you are all fellow vets. you old timers in particular may recognize times when there was talk of a soviet defector coming to, I don’t know, checkpoint Charlie or something to claim asylum. should we (or did we) turn them away immediately? no. we knew we lost that chance to gain either a useful applicant, valuable intel/info, or maybe score a few points for our morale and against theirs. sure, we pumped the hell out of them for all they knew. but the asylum claim was looked at. would we automatically turn away a defector seeking asylum from north korea? red china? russia? no. doing so would be certain death for that individual and a coup for the other side certain to make certain his… Read more »
Back in 1952 I guess MS 13, Isis and others of there ilk weren’t interested in coming up north to wreak havoc./Sarc
unfortunately, correct. but then again in 1952, we dealt with things rather than kick the can down the road. I’m told that once upon a time, in the long long ago, we even had principles and common sense. but alas, these are a sign of the times that we live in, and made so by those we allowed to assume power.
a small note for lars/cthulhu: by that I did not mean PDJT.
I think the point was that Jeff Sessions determined domestic abuse or fear of gang violence did not entitle claimants to refugee status. I agree. How far would I get if I went to Canada and claimed asylum, with all its attendant benefits, because my spouse abused me? Or a resident of parts of LA claiming fear (legitimate, as we all know) fear of gang violence? Preposterous.
Congress passed a law with respect to how asylum claims are handled and when and where someone can make a claim.
Trump administration policies violated that law. Indisputably violated that law.
This is not activism. Trump policies were violating immigration law.
If you all don’t like it than petition your congressperson for reforms to immigration laws.
I am astonished how little regard you all have for Democratic and representative processes and separation of powers.
In the minds of many here if the orange fuhrer wants something done or your sect of political tribes want something done it should be done regardless of the law, limits of power, or what the rest of the country wants.
well in response to this, let’s not forget the same standard applied with mr I-have-a-pen-and-a-phone.
peddle your one-sided forgetfulness elsewhere. his policies are not inherently wrong either, but asylee cases are handled slightly differently. the judge acknowledged that. abuse of the asylum process and any visa process DOES allow the prez to enforce appropriately.
TLDR version: stop being a troll.
You’re a socialist, Lars… you and your friends would wipe your asses with the Constitution if you had the chance to.
Now, go the fuck away and eat your tofu Grape Nuts…
Hey Babbles McButthead, just because you had a shitty childhood doesn’t mean that you have to be a shitty person.
Having shitty relationships in the past doesn’t give you license to be a shitty person.
Having had to endure shitty situations in life doesn’t give you license to be a shitty person.
Many Real People endure things like those, overcome them, and grow, maybe one day you could grow up yourself!
“Indisputably violated that law”
Nope, not ‘indisputably’. That’s pretty obvious from the current dispute.
“how little regard you all have for Democratic and representative processes and separation of powers”
Nope, you have it backwards. To cite the judge–
“Because it is the will of Congress — not the whims of the executive — that determines the standard for expedited removal”
Substitute judiciary for executive, then the judge does not have the power to determine that domestic abuse is a valid standard for asylum.
Lars, just admit that you only continue to spew nonsense here because your own ilk rejected your ass long ago. I don’t like to dogpile but even I can’t find sympathy for your repugnance.
Lift your skirt, find your balls and go find love, my son. Merry Christmas and I hope you get a life.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan…is a cocksucker.
Ka-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Shack!
He looks like Juan Williams from the Fox news Five
Another Sullivan law. Well I’ll be hog whistled.
I am not—and Lars clearly hasn’t—researched the applicable laws and regulations regarding this matter. A few general statements are in order, however. One is that the lawyers in black robes are frequently overruled when their decisions are appealed. Why? Because the sometimes misconstrue the written word and pick and choose case law to support their positions. A second is the role of precedent in judicial decisions. If a law is clear on its face, there is no interpretation needed or desired. When it is not, and an appellate court has visited it, well that’s where the fun truly begins. Judicial activism at that point will create precedent which the lower courts will then follow. Thus, a lawyer in a black robe in a subsequent case will use the activists’ earlier decision to support a decision in the instant case. That’s how the game works. Last point. Lars pretends to want to follow law. The Congress of the United States rejected the Dream Act but a tyrant I call Red Line decided to implement pasts of it himself—because he had a pen and a phone. The Left applauded and the Left necessarily includes Lars. ( I won’t even visit the anti-democratic judicial abomination that was same-sex marriage.)
Question for the group: Does this jackass work for the United States of The United Nations?
*or ( got me P.O.ed)
In this instance, your “mistake” actually seems to work!
May one ask the court how the government “un-deports” someone?
Send an FBI SWAT team into a foreign state to retrieve them? Like a reverse Elian Gonzalez.