Federal judge strikes down Trump asylum, prohibition of migrants who illegally cross the border

nearvideo trump set to sign “safe third countries” for asylum-agreement with Guatemala

President Trump says that his administration has no cooperation from the Democrats on fixing the crisis at the southern border.

President Trump’s push to limit the number of asylum seekers flooding over the border suffered a further defeat in the courts on Friday, when a Federal decided by the judge, that the government can’t stop to call for migrants for asylum in the United States, even if they crossed the border illegally.

The decision was a policy announced by trump in November, the bars migrants in the United States through the southern border of the claim to asylum, unless it is presented in a port of entry. Trump has said he acted in response to the caravans of migrants making their way to the border.


But the policy was temporarily blocked last year, a Federal appeals court, which said it was incompatible with the Federal law and was an attempt to bypass Congress. The Supreme court later for the immediate enforcement of the policy blocks in a 5-4 decision in December.

On Friday, judge Randolph Moss said that the President determined was that the influx of migrants across the border represents a “particular problem for the national interest”, but Moss decided that the assessment “override neither sufficient statutory mandate permits of all aliens in the United States apply for asylum”, whether or not you arrived at a certain port of entry.

The judge referred to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which defines who can apply for asylum, and says that no one is physically present in the United States can do this, regardless of whether or not they entered through a designated port of entry.

The case was brought by 19 asylum seekers from Central America, in the United States between ports of entry and claimed that the President of the restrictions were illegal on a number of counts, including that it is not the INA.

After the verdict, the government argues that, while the INA says that illegal immigrants can “apply” for asylum seekers, to end the rule you can apply, but instead of that, she is not “eligible” for asylum. Judge Moss rejected this argument as a distinction without a difference.


“As a matter of common use, no one would draw a meaningful distinction between, for example, a rule that children do not apply for a driver’s license and an indication that children are not entitled to a driver’s license,” he wrote. “Both of these hats mean the same thing.”

“The rule is, the direction that “a foreigner is not for asylum’ if the alien is in the United States outside a designated port of entry is not ‘compatible’ with the congressional mandate that all aliens in the United States may ‘apply’ for asylum procedures, regardless of whether he said this in the United States at a certain port of entry”.

The case is one of the many challenges, the trump administration’s efforts to crack down on migrants coming across the border and demand asylum. The administration has said it is trying to cut down on the magnets act as a pull for migrants, including the rules that limit how long the family can be held in custody.


Last month Trump announced a “safe third country” deal with Guatemala, which would require migrants to cross into the country of asylum, instead of to the US border. However, that also faces court challenges, both in Guatemala and the United States

Also last month, a California Federal judge blocked the rule would require that migrants for the first time they apply, in one of the countries that you pass through on your way to the USA, with certain exceptions. The rule is aimed at the tens of thousands of Central Americans who cross Mexico every month trying to get in the US


The policy follows the Trump administration, the protection of migrants protocols, commonly referred to as the “stay in Mexico” policy. Under this policy, asylum seekers were often told to expect to move back to Mexico hearings, rather than allowed to remain in the United States

But these restrictions fierce resistance to have seen not only the courts, but in Congress, where the Democrats have the efforts of defendant, as cruel and inhumane.

Fox News’ Bill Mears, Ronn Blitzer and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular