President Trump has the right to make moves on illegal immigration, granted to him by the Constitution and by acts of Congress. He recently proclaimed that anyone who crosses our border illegally, could not ask for asylum.
That’s a pretty common sense decision. But Obama appointed activist judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, has blocked that policy. His decision will not stand up to scrutiny by SCOTUS, but then again, he doesn’t expect it to. He wants to delay it and get as many invaders into the United States as possible. It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and slap down activist judges and remove them from the bench.
In the proclamation, Trump said that his administration would no longer honor requests for political asylum unless migrants entered the U.S. legally, through a port of entry:
Crossing the border to avoid detection and then, if apprehended, claiming a fear of persecution is in too many instances an avenue to near-automatic release into the interior of the United States.
I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry.
But aliens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum under the regulation promulgated by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security that became effective earlier today. Those aliens may, however, still seek other forms of protection from persecution or torture.
President Trump has another option. International law states that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they6 come to that would be safe for them. In this case, Mexico, who has already offered them asylum, but were turned down.
Introduction: International Standards
The concept of first country of asylum is defined in Article 26 of the APD:
A country can be considered to be a first country of asylum for a particular applicant
for asylum if:
(a) s/he has been recognised in that country as a refugee and s/he can still avail
him/herself of that protection; or
(b) s/he otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, including benefiting
from the principle of non-refoulement;
provided that s/he will be re-admitted to that country.
In applying the concept of first country of asylum to the particular circumstances of an
applicant for asylum Member States may take into account Article 27 (1).
Art. 27 (1) APD stipulates that Member States must be satisfied that the applicant will be treated in
accordance with the following principles in the third country concerned: “(a) life and liberty are not
threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political
opinion; (b) the principle of non-refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention is respected; (c)
the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected; (d) the possibility exists to request
refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva
Game, set , match. Activist judges cannot circumvent international law.