They also argue that the CBP One app that the government wants migrants to use doesn’t have enough appointments and isn’t available in enough languages.īut Reuveni argued that there has been real progress in other countries such as Mexico, Belize and Costa Rica so that migrants can seek protection there. Immigrant rights group 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. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to weigh in to defend the impartiality of judges. 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. “Thousands of people with valid claims … 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. But immigration rights groups suing to get rid of it say it endangers migrants and is illegal. 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 2,000-mile (3,220-kilometer) 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 - a question that gave the online hearing Wednesday a sense of deja vu. 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 an appointment or they have already 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. WASHINGTON (AP) - The Biden administration argued Wednesday that its new asylum rule is different from versions put forward under President Donald Trump in a court hearing before a judge who threw out Trump’s attempts to limit asylum on the U.S.-Mexico border.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |