The US President has the legal right to say who and what kind can come to and be in the United States. And it is a sad sad situation when one federal judge can block the decision of the US President.
On Monday, a federal judge blocked President Trump’s policy of shipping illegal aliens/asylum seekers back across the U.S.-Mexico border until their cases were processed for entry into the United States legally. This program was supposed to slow down the number of “caravaners” bum-rushing our border with little to no stoppage.
I thought if you were coming from Central America and you are walking through Mexico, legally, they are required to apply for asylum in Mexico, as that is the country closest to the country they are fleeing. Otherwise, Mexico should prosecute them for illegally entering their country.
Even with this decision, the Supreme Court will be handling this one also. Twice before a Judge has when against the President, and twice the Supreme Court sided with President Trump.
A U.S. judge on Monday halted the Trump administration’s policy of sending some asylum seekers back across the southern border to wait out their cases in Mexico, stopping a program the government planned to use to stem a recent flood of migrants.
The ruling is slated to take effect on Friday, according to the order by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco. The preliminary injunction will apply nationwide.
The program was launched in January and was one of many policies aimed at slowing rising numbers of immigrants arriving at the border, many of them families from Central America, that swelled last month to the highest level in a decade.
Because of limits on how long children are legally allowed to be held in detention, many of the families are released to await U.S. immigration court hearings, a process that can take years because of ballooning backlogs. [Reuters]
Now all the judge needs to do is explain to American people why asylum seekers have the right to stay in the United States until their case is adjudicated, given that 95% fail to show up for their court case. Minus that and the Executive is under no obligation to enforce the judge’s order. As President Jackson once said of a judge’s court decision, “It’s his decision, let’s see him enforce it.”
The Supreme Court needs to take charge of appeals when they deal with national security. These asylum claims are frivolous, but once the individual making a claim is released into the country, he or she then disappears. The Supreme Court should immediately take up the appeal, bypassing the 9th Circuit.
Imagine 9th circuit liberal judge ruled against the immigration policy, which is what they regularly do. It is more likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court. We’re at a place in time when it is sad our legal system has become an activist forum for progressives and their agenda. You have to admit something is wrong when the 9th circuit’s cases are overturned at an 87% clip. This is what you call an inefficient and costly liberal activist institution.
I don’t care what your party affiliation is, common sense and fairness should make you desire constitutional law govern our court systems and make you want competent judges to rule based on law and not personal opinion.
If a judges ruling is overturned at such a high frequency, then it is an indicator they cannot remain partial and use sound reason to decide cases and should be replaced with someone who can interpret the law more accurately.
The Supreme Court will hear this eventually and render a fair decision under constitutional law.
If we lose the rule of law, the country is finished.