![]() ![]() Immigrant rights groups say the Biden rule forces migrants to seek protection in countries that don't have the same robust asylum system and human rights protections as the United States and leaves them in a dangerous limbo. But the one barring people from applying for asylum except at an official border entry point was caught up in litigation and never took effect. The Supreme Court eventually allowed that Trump rule to go into effect. The measure would have applied to children traveling alone, while the Biden rule does not. Tigar also ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to limit asylum to people who don't apply for protection in a country they travel through before coming to the U.S. Trump derided him an "Obama judge" after Tigar rejected a policy barring people from applying for asylum except at an official border entry point. Tigar was appointed by President Barack Obama. This rule has consequences," Eiland said. have been ordered removed and in many cases removed to likely persecution. Katrina Eiland, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the immigrant rights organizations who sued over the Biden rule, argued Wednesday that it violates immigration law that allows people to seek asylum wherever they arrive on the border. "This is not a toothless exception," he said. Reuveni argued that the Biden rule is different from Trump's attempts to limit asylum, noting that exceptions are being granted at a rate of 9%. authorities, between a barbed-wire barrier and the border fence at the U.S.-Mexico border, as seen from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, May 10, 2023. "I read somewhere that 2023 would be a good year for sequels," Tigar told Reuveni as the lawyer prepared to begin his arguments.įILE - Migrants wait for U.S. He also referenced his history with Trump's attempts to limit asylum. But immigration rights groups suing to get rid of it say it endangers migrants and is illegal.Īt the outset of Wednesday's hearing, Tigar said he would have more questions for the government than the groups trying to stop the asylum rule. The administration argues that its rule encourages migrants to use lawful pathways into the U.S. The lawsuit challenging the new rule is being heard as congressional Republicans are attacking the administration for what they say is a failure to control the roughly 3,220-kilometer (2,000-mile) border with Mexico. President Joe Biden's administration instituted its rule on May 11 with the expiration of a COVID-19 restriction known as Title 42 that had limited asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Tigar, ruled against the Trump administration's two attempts to limit asylum. The San Francisco-based federal judge who will decide the case, Jon S. Opponents say it's essentially a rehash of Trump efforts. The rule makes it extremely difficult for migrants who come directly to the southern border to get asylum unless they use a government app to make appointments, or they have tried to seek protection in a country they passed through on their way to the U.S. ![]() "2023 is not 2019," said Erez Reuveni, the Department of Justice lawyer who argued the case. The argument was made in an online hearing before a judge who threw out Trump's attempts to limit asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border. ![]() The Biden administration argued Wednesday that its new asylum rule is different from versions put forward under then-President Donald Trump. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |