[U] ACLU's Federal Court Hearing Set For Tuesday, In San Francisco (On Assignment), On Trump's Unlawful Southern Border Asylum Ban Attempts

As we indicated (on Friday) the ACLU would, the suit has now been filed in Northern California's federal District court -- for among other things, a nationwide halt to the implementation of any purported asylum ban, at the southern border. [A motion for a TRO has also been filed, under seal, at this point (and an earlier version of the post and graphic, relying on the PACER feed, had Magistrate Judge Ryu out of Oakland, assigned preliminarily). RESIST!]

This East Bay Sanctuary suit will likely soon prevent the application of Trump's latest lunacy -- in violation of international law applicable to the US (since at least 1967), and 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) -- as to vulnerable refugees, now slowly walking toward the Rio Grande River. It will be at least six weeks before they arrive, and even so, we as a nation should be clear about our treaty and statutory obligations, to each of them. They are entirely free to cross at any point, and promptly claim for asylum anywhere inside the interior of the United States. [Perhaps we ought to organize an "underground railway" of sorts (21^st Century edition), to get them to Chicago or San Francisco -- two cities more likely to help them make their asylum claims, rather than jail them.] More on that last notion -- in a future post.

We will note in passing, contrary to 45's boldly false assertions -- in adopting this latest measure, the vast majority of asylum seekers who are apprehended upon their arrival and then released into the United States' interior after passing their credible fear interviews do in fact show up for their immigration court hearings. According to data from our own US Department of Justice (even while under the thumb of Trump, in the full year 2017), 89% of asylum seekers appeared for their hearings. It is simply false to suggest that most of the asylees have been gaming our systems, as Trump incessantly bloviates. From the complaint then:

. . . .As part of our nation’s commitment to the protection of people fleeing persecution, federal law specifically guarantees that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States,” at a designated port of entry or not, is entitled to apply for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Consistent with its international obligations [primarily the 1951 UN Convention], Congress was specific and clear: Entering without inspection is not a basis to categorically deny asylum to refugees. . . .

[As of November 9, 2018, Trump seeks to] bar people from obtaining asylum if they enter the United States somewhere along the southern border other than a designated port of arrival -- in direct violation of Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar. In addition, the Acting Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security promulgated the rule without the required procedural steps and without good cause for immediately putting the rule into effect. . . .

Now you know. I do wonder whether there are enough people of good will (via the Catholic charities chaired by Father Phleger in Chicago for example), willing to help -- willing to welcome them for even one night, into thier homes, and then transport and move migrants north and east, from the banks of the Rio Grande, toward San Antonio, then Nashville, then Chicago (or San Francisco even), and on to Philly, New York and/or Boston. What are. . . the odds? Let me know. . . .

नमस्ते