Thursday, June 25, the U.S. Supreme court upheld the right of the administration to trump deportation of people seeking asylum, not allowing them to bring their immigration cases to Federal court, according to AP.
Experts on immigration have suggested that the administration will use broad language that would support broader efforts to restrict the right to asylum in the United States.
The Supreme court ruling 7-2 shall apply to persons who were arrested on the border or near it and have not passed the initial eligibility check, which gives the right to their rapid deportation or expedited removal.
Judge Samuel Alito issued the opinion overturned a lower court decision that asylum seekers should have access to the Federal courts.
“Congress acted properly creating a system in order to weed out manifestly ill-founded applications and to promptly out of the country for foreigners filing such applications,” writes Alito.
He noted that more than three quarters of people who tried to obtain asylum within the last five years, were checked and received the right to a full eligibility check.
Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer agreed with the result in this case, but did not join the Alito opinion.
In its opposition to judge Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today’s decision jeopardizes the ability of the judiciary to perform its constitutional duty to protect freedom of personality.” Her opinion was joined by justice Elena Kagan.
If Gelert, a lawyer at the American civil liberties Union, speaking with their arguments on this case in the Supreme court, said that as a result of this decision will be difficult to question the actions of the immigration officers at the border with the United States.
“This decision may affect tens of thousands of people on the border who are not able to seek review of denials of asylum,” he argued Gelert.
In practice, the scope of the rule may be limited. Even after the decision of the Federal court of appeal in San Francisco handed down by the judges on 25 June, only about 30 asylum seekers, whose claims were quickly dismissed, appealed to the courts.
But Professor of law at Cornell University Stephen Yale-loer, an expert on immigration issues, said the decision supports a broader administrative actions concerning the right to asylum.
“Judge Alito has used broad language in his majority opinion supporting the efforts of Congress to limit due process for immigrants. Although it is not necessary for accurate consideration of the case, the administration of the tramp, of course, uses such language to justify their broader efforts to limit persons applying for asylum,” said Yale-loer.
The administration has made the dismantling of the asylum system as a Central part of its immigration program, stating that the system is rife with abuse and overloaded with unreasonable requests. Changes include the pending decisions on the case in Mexico until things pass through the immigration courts of the United States, the refusal of asylum to anyone who is on the Mexican border and runs through another country without first contacting there for protection, and redirection of immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador to Guatemala with the possibility to seek asylum there, not in the United States.
Monday, June 22, the administration trump has published a new procedural and substantive rules that will greatly complicate the asylum.Now enter a 30-day period for public comment before they take effect.
According to the UN, in 2017, the United States became the main place in the world, which appealed to the seekers. Many of them are families from Mexico and Central America fleeing endemic violence.
Judges made the decision in the case of Vijay Kumar of Tourissima, who said he fled from persecution as a member of the Tamil minority of Sri Lanka but failed to convince the immigration officers that he will cause harm if he returns to Sri Lanka. The man was arrested shortly after crossed the U.S. border from Mexico.
To it applied the procedure of expedited removal, which prohibits people who have not passed the initial interview, to ask for help in the Federal courts.
Since 2004, immigration officials aim quick deportation of undocumented immigrants, which are taken within 100 miles (160 km) from the border with the United States within 14 days after entering the country. The administration of the trump seeks to extend these powers to people detained anywhere in the United States, could be deported within two years after their arrival.
On Tuesday, June 23, the Federal court of appeal rejected the decision of the judge of first instance, which is blocked, these extended powers. Other legal issues in the case remain to be addressed.
[term_id] => 12
[name] => In USA
[taxonomy] => category
[slug] => novosti-ssha
IN THE UNITED STATES
[term_id] => 21187
[name] => political asylum in the United States
[taxonomy] => post_tag
[slug] => politicheskoe-ubezhishhe-v-ssha