U.S. court deals serious blow to Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy

[rooster59]

U.S. court deals serious blow to Trump's 'Remain in Mexico' immigration policy

By Mica Rosenberg

 

FILE PHOTO: Migrants, most of them asylum seekers sent back to Mexico from the U.S. under the "Remain in Mexico" program officially named Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), occupy a makeshift encampment in Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico, October 28, 2019. REUTERS/Loren Elliott/File Photo

 

(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday blocked one of President Donald Trump's signature immigration policies that has helped to sharply curb a migration surge on the southern border and forced tens of thousands of migrants to wait in Mexico.

 

The decision is a major blow to Trump who has declared the policy a success in reducing the flow of hundreds of thousands of people from Central America into the United States as he campaigns for a second term in office.

 

A three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the programme, called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), violated U.S. immigration law and international obligations on the treatment of asylum seekers.

 

Some 59,000 people have been sent back to Mexico to await the outcome of their cases in often dangerous border towns where they are vulnerable to kidnapping, rape, robbery and other crimes while living in sometimes unsanitary conditions.

 

Immigration attorneys rushed to ports of entry on the border after the ruling to ensure Customs and Border Protection officers were aware that the programme had been blocked, said Taylor Levy, an El Paso-based immigration attorney. In El Paso immigration court, meanwhile, Judge Nathan Herbert adjourned proceedings for the day, saying he was not sure how the ruling would affect individual migrants' cases.

 

Asylum officers, who screen migrants placed in the MPP programme for fear of persecution in Mexico, were told to immediately stop working on such cases, according to an internal email shared with Reuters.

 

The ruling means the United States can no longer send people back to Mexico under the programme, said Michael Tan, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union. It is not clear how it affects people already in the programme in Mexico.

 

The White House criticized the decision as "another reckless nationwide injunction threatening our constitutional structure," and said it was "considering all available legal options to seek further review of this decision."

 

If the ruling is allowed to stand, the White House said in a statement, it would "reignite the humanitarian and security crisis at the border."

 

The administration is likely to quickly appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it has done with other rulings.

 

Trump, who has made cracking down on immigration a central theme of his more than three years in the White House, has sought through a series of new policies and rule changes to reduce asylum claims filed mostly by Central Americans arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

The Trump administration's policies on curbing asylum applications have led to a significant decline in the number of illegal crossings reported by border agents, and have been more successful than the president's efforts to construct a physical barrier on the southern border.

 

Arrests of family units on the U.S.-Mexico border from October to January fell to 32,480, a nearly 70 percent drop compared to the same period a year earlier.

 

AS DANGEROUS AS YEMEN

 

Migrants in the MPP programme, many of them children, have faced violence and homelessness as they wait for their court dates. At least 1,000 people sent back under the programme were violently attacked or threatened in Mexico, according to a Feb. 28 Human Rights First report that documented kidnappings, rapes and assaults.

 

One of the states to which thousands of migrants were returned, Tamaulipas, is described by the U.S. State Department as carrying the same risk level as Yemen and Syria due to crimes including "murder, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, forced disappearances, extortion, and sexual assault."

 

The Trump administration had argued the programme did not violate a principle in international law known as non-refoulement, which says asylum seekers should not be returned to places where they face danger. The administration has said migrants could tell officials at any point in the process they had a fear of returning to Mexico.

 

Very few migrants have been transferred out of the programme to pursue the resolution of their court cases in the United States, according to a Reuters analysis of immigration court data published last year. 

 

A Washington-area union for federal asylum officers argued against the MPP programme in a brief filed in the case.

 

"By forcing a vulnerable population to return to a hostile territory where they are likely to face persecution, the MPP abandons our tradition of providing a safe haven to the persecuted," the union wrote.

 

The appeals court panel concluded that plaintiffs in the case, which included 11 asylum seekers and several immigration advocacy groups, "had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the MPP does not comply with the United States' treaty-based non-refoulement obligations."

 

The Trump administration has said most asylum petitions are ultimately denied by immigration courts and releasing migrants into the United States to wait for hearings encourages people to disappear into the country. Officials say making migrants wait in Mexico is a way to cut down on fraudulent asylum claims.

 

In a separate ruling on Friday, the 9th Circuit left in place a lower court's block on a Trump administration regulation that barred migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry from seeking asylum.

 

A three-judge panel in that case found the regulation - issued in November 2018 and swiftly enjoined by a federal judge in the Northern District of California - conflicted with federal immigration statutes on asylum and amounted to "a categorical ban" on certain asylum seekers.

 

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York, Kristina Cooke in Los Angeles, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Ted Hesson in Washington and Julio-Cesar Chavez in El Paso; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Howard Goller and Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-29

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[Mavideol]

he will say that all 3 judges are NO Trumpers and will assign new ones, preferably Trumpists

[yankee99]

In the next 4 years he'll flip the 9th and get rid of the radical left judges

[DoctorG]

It is nearly always the 9th. Very odd. NOT

I believe they are the most overturned Appeals Court in the USA.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, DoctorG said:

It is nearly always the 9th. Very odd. NOT

I believe they are the most overturned Appeals Court in the USA.

Thats not surprising when they consider the most cases.

[Tropposurfer]

I aint' no build a wall kinda guy, and I'm not a Yank either. But, I kinda feel that to have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing their own countries because of economic and war pressures and 'invading' and 'overwhelming' the social services of that country needs to be addressed in different ways.

How about working towards 'carrots not sticks' approaches with the <deleted> who run these countries down to the point people flee them to survive! Share wealth and cooperation to help each other a bit more. Trade wars embargos unfair trade practices, exploitation for cheap labour, raping natural resources of one poor/er place to build up the lifestyles of another country might need to be seriously rethought.

Yeah I know that sounds like some socialist idea, maybe it is/! My thinking is along the lines of helping your neighbour to help yourself.

[Tug]

Wonder if trump will respond he’s busy blaming everyone else for the covid 19 and stock market meltdown 

[Thomas J]

19 hours ago, DoctorG said:

It is nearly always the 9th. Very odd. NOT

I believe they are the most overturned Appeals Court in the USA.

DoctorG

You are correct.  The ninth circuit which has also been called the Ninth Circus court covers it is based in San Francisco and covers as it is described the LEFT COAST.  It is really frightening when you consider that the courts are suppose to read the law not make the law.  It is a sad commentary when the very same law can go to multiple courts finally ending in the Supreme Court and end up with different rulings.  If the law is properly enacted either by Congress, the regulatory bodies, or Congress it is not in their purview to inject their bias into the law.   Saying keeping them in Mexico was not "protecting them" is a fallacious argument.  Does that mean that the USA has the obligation to protect every person on earth?  Common sense says that these people were born outside the USA and should reside there until it is determined if they have a valid claim to be admitted.  No different than a citizen of Thailand who wishes to permanently reside in the USA.  The judges in effect were created law.  An open border policy where once you reach US soil you can not be deported but must be released in the general population.  That is hardly protecting the citizens of the USA not knowing who you let in. Further it makes a mockery of having any immigration laws which the justices are suppose to uphold. 

[Nyezhov]

I just read that the 9th stayed its own order.

 

Regardless, President Trump will win again when it hits the Supreme Court.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Nyezhov

[simple1]

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

I just read that the 9th stayed its own order.

 

Regardless, President Trump will win again when it hits the Supreme Court.

The ruling was in effect for only a few hours, however, as the judges later granted a Trump administration request for an emergency stay “pending further order of this court.” WAPO.

 

The original order was made to enforce US international and domestic legal obligations not to contravene non refoulement policy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-refoulement

[Baerboxer]

On 2/29/2020 at 1:02 PM, Mavideol said:

he will say that all 3 judges are NO Trumpers and will assign new ones, preferably Trumpists

 

Without knowing their politics or views, it's interesting that these judges assume all South Americans to be asylum seekers. Not illegal economic immigrants becoming criminals in trying to enter a country illegally.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

On 2/29/2020 at 7:21 PM, Tropposurfer said:

I aint' no build a wall kinda guy, and I'm not a Yank either. But, I kinda feel that to have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing their own countries because of economic and war pressures and 'invading' and 'overwhelming' the social services of that country needs to be addressed in different ways.

How about working towards 'carrots not sticks' approaches with the <deleted> who run these countries down to the point people flee them to survive! Share wealth and cooperation to help each other a bit more. Trade wars embargos unfair trade practices, exploitation for cheap labour, raping natural resources of one poor/er place to build up the lifestyles of another country might need to be seriously rethought.

Yeah I know that sounds like some socialist idea, maybe it is/! My thinking is along the lines of helping your neighbour to help yourself.

 

Their aren't any wars in South America. Lawless corrupt countries but not at war. People need to take responsibility for their own country. Not expect the US, UK, EU or Australia etc to simply let them move there and look after them.

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/29/2020 at 1:02 PM, Mavideol said:

he will say that all 3 judges are NO Trumpers and will assign new ones, preferably Trumpists

He cant "assign" new judges. Why do you people all follow US politics, and then also claim to know how the US Gov works?

 

Judges to the 9th circuit are appointed. Someone dies, or retires, someone gets appointed.

 

 

[WalkingOrders]

On 3/2/2020 at 11:40 AM, Baerboxer said:

 

Their aren't any wars in South America. Lawless corrupt countries but not at war. People need to take responsibility for their own country. Not expect the US, UK, EU or Australia etc to simply let them move there and look after them.

Agreed, and often overlooked, is that the USA, intervening in politics of another country, is then grounds to blame the US later (They always do) for taking sides, and any intervention by the USA, is taking a side. Fact of the matter is Governments in Central/South America, have for the most part always been a mess. And contrary to popular opinion it hasn't been the fault of US policy. A wall precedes, all discussion of immigration policy. 20 million illegal aliens, is a ridiculous number. We have literally lost control.

[WalkingOrders]

On 2/29/2020 at 7:21 PM, Tropposurfer said:

I aint' no build a wall kinda guy, and I'm not a Yank either. But, I kinda feel that to have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing their own countries because of economic and war pressures and 'invading' and 'overwhelming' the social services of that country needs to be addressed in different ways.

How about working towards 'carrots not sticks' approaches with the <deleted> who run these countries down to the point people flee them to survive! Share wealth and cooperation to help each other a bit more. Trade wars embargos unfair trade practices, exploitation for cheap labour, raping natural resources of one poor/er place to build up the lifestyles of another country might need to be seriously rethought.

Yeah I know that sounds like some socialist idea, maybe it is/! My thinking is along the lines of helping your neighbour to help yourself.

Is it the responsiblity of the USA to give their useless governments money? To support them? Prop them up? Overthrow them? Put in a democratic new guy? It never ends.

[Sujo]

On 3/2/2020 at 12:37 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Without knowing their politics or views, it's interesting that these judges assume all South Americans to be asylum seekers. Not illegal economic immigrants becoming criminals in trying to enter a country illegally.

 

 

They dont assume. Anyone turning up at the border and claiming asylum is indeed an asylum seeker.

 

They are not illegal economic migrants until their cases are heard and decided.