[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Friday refused to relaunch a Trump administration initiative banning migrants who enter the country illegally from seeking asylum.
The court was divided, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the four The Liberal wing member rejected the request of the administration requesting the suspension of the order of trial judge blocking the program.
The brief order of the court did not motivate his action. Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh stated that they would have granted the suspension.
In a proclamation dated November 9, President Trump prohibited migrants from seeking asylum unless they made the request to a checkpoint. Trump said only those who applied at an entry point would be eligible, citing what he said was his national security powers to protect the country's borders.
"Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States," says the relevant federal law, may apply for asylum – "whether or not he is in the United States. a designated place port of arrival. "
Judge Jon S. Tigar, of the United States District Court in San Francisco, issued a temporary prohibition order blocking the initiative at the national level. "Whatever the extent of the authority of the president," wrote Judge Tigar, "he can not rewrite immigration laws to impose a condition expressly prohibited by Congress."
million. Trump attacked Judge Tigar, calling him an "Obama judge." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. challenged this description, saying that federal judges applied the law regardless of the policy of the presidents who appointed them.
A split panel of three judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, refused to stay the order of Tigar Judge. The majority opinion was written by Judge Jay S. Bybee, appointed by President George W. Bush.
"We are well aware of the crisis in the enforcement of our immigration laws," Judge Bybee wrote. "The burden of dealing with these issues has fallen disproportionately on the courts of our circuit. And although we may be tempted to revise the law as we see fit, the revision of the laws is left to the branch that promulgated the laws in the first place – the Congress. "
The Trump administration, at the time urged the Supreme Court must suspend the decision of Judge Tigar, claiming that the president was allowed to deal with border security by imposing the new policy.
"The United States has seen an increase in the number of foreigners who enter the country illegally from Mexico and, if it is arrested, applies for asylum and stays in the country while in treatment. demand, with little chance of obtaining this discretionary remedy, "said Solicitor General Noel Francisco to the judges.
"The President, believing that this development encourages dangerous and illegal border crossings and undermines the integrity of the country's borders, has determined that a temporary suspension of the entry of foreigners who did not show up at an inspection The port of entry along the southern border is in the interest of the nation, "said Mr. Francisco.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents groups challenging the policy, said that Congress had made a different decision, a decision that only Congress can amend. 19659002] "After the Second World War and the horrors experienced by refugees who were turned back by the United States and elsewhere, the Congress joined the international community to adopt standards for the treatment of those fleeing the persecution, "ACLU lawyers wrote. "An essential guarantee is insurance, codified explicitly and unambiguously, that a person fleeing a persecution can apply for asylum without worrying about the place or conditions of entry into the country. "
Source link
