This latest "rule scheme" would purport to say [in direct contravention of the 1951 International Protocol on Refugees we signed, and most of the provisions of 8 USC -- see below] that no person may apply for asylum here, unless they have already applied for asylum in the first country they crossed, on their way here. As a practical matter, this would only discriminate against people seeking entrance from our border with Mexico, since that is the only geographic border which touches other countries, besides the US. [Contra, Canada.]
Also, as a practical matter, the United States may NOT, by simple internal "rule" -- [as opposed to an international treaty] purport to bind people who are from a foreign nation, even before they arrive on our soil. Finally, the Trumpists didn't even follow the APA in promulgating the "rule". So it will fail. Here is the full 34 page complaint, in the new lawsuit, and a bit, from the fine ACLU lawyers, writing it:
. . . .As part of our nation’s commitment to the protection of people fleeing persecution and consistent with our international obligations, it is longstanding federal law that merely transiting through a third country is not a basis to categorically deny asylum to refugees who arrive at our shores. . . .
Congress expressly provided in the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) that a noncitizen is ineligible for asylum in the United States only if she “was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). The concept of firm resettlement -- which involves far more than a mere transitory relationship with a third country -- dates back to international agreements crafted after World War II, and takes into account the ties an individual fleeing persecution formed with another country and his or her particular ability to enjoy safety and legal protection there. . . .
[Finally], Congress expressly spoke to when an asylum seeker may be removed to a third country and required to seek protection there: only where the United States and that country have entered into a bilateral or multilateral agreement, the removal is pursuant to that agreement, and there is a determination that the asylum seeker would not face persecution and “would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum” in that country. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A). . . .
Now you know. Again, Trump and Barr come up. . . losers. It must be. . . difficult, to be this repeatedly ignorant of -- and wrong on -- the law. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment