Yesterday, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a San Francisco judge’s asinine order that prevented President Donald Trump from ensuring that asylum seekers remain in Mexico while their cases are processed.
The previous ruling forced the U.S. to release these invaders into the country with the ‘hope’ that they’d appear in court.
The appeals court ruling is a major victory for the president.
The Associated Press reported:
The case must still be considered on its merits and could end up at the Supreme Court. But allowing the policy to remain in effect in the meantime lets the administration carry out an unprecedented change to U.S. asylum practices.
The administration has said it plans to rapidly expand the policy across the border, which would have far-reaching consequences for asylum seekers and Mexican border cities that host them while their cases wind through clogged U.S. immigration courts. Cases can take several years to decide.
The policy was challenged by 11 Central Americans and advocacy groups that argued it jeopardized asylum seekers by forcing them to stay in Mexico, where crime and drug violence are prevalent.
The administration introduced its “Migrant Protection Protocols” policy on Jan. 29 in San Diego and later expanded it to Calexico, California, and El Paso, Texas.
Under the policy, asylum seekers report to a border crossing in the morning. The U.S. government provides transportation to immigration court and returns them to the border after the hearing.
The Hill added:
The panel of judges wrote in the opinion that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm if the policy was halted because it “takes off the table one of the few congressionally authorized measures available to process the approximately 2,000 migrants who are currently arriving at the Nation’s southern border on a daily basis.”
The judges also found that the policy was not implemented in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it is not one of the policies covered by the act and therefore does not require certain processes to take place ahead of its implementation.
Several immigration groups had sued DHS over the policy on behalf of migrants affected by the policy, arguing that the practice was improperly implemented and put the migrants in harm’s way.
However, some of the judges were highly critical of DHS’s implementation of the policy in individual opinions authored on the decision, signaling that they could oppose the policy in a later ruling.
Judge Paul Watford, an Obama nominee, wrote in his opinion that he believes the administration’s treatment of asylum-seekers is in violation of the U.S.’s obligation to not return those migrants to countries where they could face persecution.
“DHS has not, thus far, offered any rational explanation for this glaring deficiency in its procedures. (One suspects the agency is not asking an important question during the interview process simply because it would prefer not to hear the answer),” Watford wrote in his opinion, adding that he believes the immigration groups could win their argument against the policy as a result.
The fact remains, however, that the panel of judges was forced to follow the law. There is nothing wrong with the president’s order, it simply ensures that non-Mexicans seeking asylum through invasion are not allowed to enter the country until they prove their claim.