[ad_1]
Anyone confused about the insane psychology of liberals who believe that US taxpayers should support all the poor of Central America can get instant clarity by reading one of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's dissents this week.
On Wednesday, the court offered temporary relief to the Trump government by allowing it to adopt a new rule that will allow immigration authorities to quickly deny asylum claims from Central Americans who do not want to. did not first seek refuge in other countries that they crossed. to go to the United States.
Sotomayor's dissent reads as the scenario of one of those hungry children's advertisements: For only 10 cents a day, you can save a life. Alongside Judge Ruther Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor wrote: "The stakes for asylum seekers could not be greater", and that "some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere" will be affected without having given the American public weigh in "on the rule change.
Putting aside the fact that this argument would abolish the elaboration of executive rules if it came to a logical conclusion, it is not clear why the public would need a "chance to weigh" on a policy that does not exist. not affect one person in the country. The only way the rule could A person already present on the site may hope that a family member or friend illegally crosses the border and then asks for asylum. Well, that's the problem the administration is trying to solve: hundreds of thousands of people without a meritorious asylum claim are jumping onto American soil and securing indefinite legal protection to stay in the country. exploiting the legal vacuum that our asylum system has become. .
Nobody denies that asylum seekers are "vulnerable". They are poor and often they have left their homes because their torn country has been invaded by gang violence. But the asylum procedure was not designed to serve as a social safety net for the "vulnerable". The asylum is for the persecuted. If a person feels persecuted in their own country, why would they need to travel more than 2,000 kilometers, through at least one other country, to the United States before finally applying for asylum?
They do not need it. A story in the Washington Post on Saturday proved, citing several migrants who decided that, because the administration had made access to the United States more difficult, they would simply try to go elsewhere elsewhere (which is the purpose of the rule change). From the story:
Edwin Edgardo Rivera, 32, a bartender and clothing store employee in Honduras, was among those looking for a new life in Mexico. He said he fled Honduras after receiving death threats from a gang unhappy with his refusal to help them collect extortion payments. He first thought about going to the United States. "But it's very difficult," he said. "Of course, if I can go north, I'll do it," he laughed.
Sotomayor can relax. The court's decision is only effective while the related legal issues are resolved in the lower courts. It could very well be reversed. But at least his dissent provides a broad window on the twisted thought process of open-border advocates.
[ad_2]
Source link