Federal asylum law to change; requiring asylum-seekers to first try elsewhere

[Koharu]

AP News

According to a new rule published in the Federal Register , asylum seekers who pass through another country first will be ineligible for asylum at the U.S. southern border. The rule, expected to go into effect Tuesday, also applies to children who have crossed the border alone.

NPR

The interim final rule will take effect immediately after it's published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, DHS says.

The new policy applies specifically to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that "an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien's country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum."

[Koharu]

Mr. Castro gave a great summation of what this change looks like.

https://twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1150773982087536641

[Sir Mohamed]

This is wrong, ineffective and bureaucratic.

[SteveRogers]

Unless I’m mistaken, this is contrary to the plain language of the law. Expect it to be blocked by the courts pretty swiftly (Trump of course knows this already and is just throwing red meat to his base).

[Santander]

It should apply at both borders and then it would be reasonable.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

This will definitely not survive in court.

[DavidB.]

Important and necessary step. Don't understand why this wasn't done in January 2017 already.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This more or less would mean almost no asylum claims would be valid anymore, right?

[Jeffster]

If you have a legitimate asylum claim, then why would you skip through several other countries to get to the US and not apply for asylum in the first safe country you are let into? Plus, those countries tend to speak the same language the asylum claimant does, so integration into the local culture will be much smoother.

And what exactly is causing this sudden rise in asylum claims, because as far as I'm aware there is no war going on in Central America, no authoritarian governments killing specific groups or anything. It really looks like someone has instructed the people down there how to abuse the asylum process so they can sneak into the US. So changing to rule in order to stop people from gaming the system makes sense.

Also, we have gangs in the US, with several areas rife with violence, so that is not a legitimate reason for asylum, otherwise people from the US could use it to get into Canada.

[John Dule]

If you have a legitimate asylum claim, then why would you skip through several other countries to get to the US and not apply for asylum in the first safe country you are let into? Plus, those countries tend to speak the same language the asylum claimant does, so integration into the local culture will be much smoother.

And what exactly is causing this sudden rise in asylum claims, because as far as I'm aware there is no war going on in Central America, no authoritarian governments killing specific groups or anything. It really looks like someone has instructed the people down there how to abuse the asylum process so they can sneak into the US. So changing to rule in order to stop people from gaming the system makes sense.

Also, we have gangs in the US, with several areas rife with violence, so that is not a legitimate reason for asylum, otherwise people from the US could use it to get into Canada.

[cinyc]

Unless I’m mistaken, this is contrary to the plain language of the law. Expect it to be blocked by the courts pretty swiftly (Trump of course knows this already and is just throwing red meat to his base).

No, it’s not. Asylum seekers must seek asylum in the first safe country through which they pass under US Laws and treaties. That’s always been the law.

Will it be blocked by the courts? I’m sure opponents will judge shop and a Hawaiian (or whatever) lower court judge will try to issue a nationwide injunction again, but the appeals courts aren’t as liberal as they used to be.

[lfromnj]

100% reasonable idea.

The migrants coming are economic and want to abuse asylum laws. Do I want economic migrants who will likely contribute to the economy? Yes.
 
But these people literally cross half a dozen countries to get to the USA. Even Mexico itself is large enough that large parts of the country are free from violence to a degree.  If Mexico accepts the asylum request then they are simply choosing beggars and not refugees.

[lfromnj]

This more or less would mean almost no asylum claims would be valid anymore, right?

I guess it wouldn't affect Venezuelan refugees who generally come through planes.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This more or less would mean almost no asylum claims would be valid anymore, right?

Still there are a lot of asylum seekers every year from Mexico.

Those from countries further South, would have to apply for refugee status while outside the US if they wanted to be accepted, or else try and fail to be accepted for asylum in another country.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

interesting perspective here:
https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1150853624731504640?s=20
https://twitter.com/brandondarby/status/1150858856748212225?s=20

[Progressive Pessimist]

What difference does that make other than to inconvenience those whose only means of travelling to the United States is walking? Oh, right...I answered my own question.

[JA]

This will be shot down in court simply because the US does not have a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico. The US only has such a law with Canada. Without that agreement with Mexico, US law does not recognize Mexico as a safe third country and, therefore, migrants cannot be rejected for asylum in the US on the basis that they should've applied for asylum in Mexico instead. That's simply not permissible under existing American asylum laws.

Link to source

[Green Line]

This is just common sense.

[Pandaguineapig]

This is the law in every other developed country on Earth, Democrats are just pissy over anything that might reduce their ability to use desperate migrants as political props

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you have a legitimate asylum claim, then why would you skip through several other countries to get to the US and not apply for asylum in the first safe country you are let into? Plus, those countries tend to speak the same language the asylum claimant does, so integration into the local culture will be much smoother.

And what exactly is causing this sudden rise in asylum claims, because as far as I'm aware there is no war going on in Central America, no authoritarian governments killing specific groups or anything. It really looks like someone has instructed the people down there how to abuse the asylum process so they can sneak into the US. So changing to rule in order to stop people from gaming the system makes sense.

Also, we have gangs in the US, with several areas rife with violence, so that is not a legitimate reason for asylum, otherwise people from the US could use it to get into Canada.

[cinyc]

This will be shot down in court simply because the US does not have a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico. The US only has such a law with Canada. Without that agreement with Mexico, US law does not recognize Mexico as a safe third country and, therefore, migrants cannot be rejected for asylum in the US on the basis that they should've applied for asylum in Mexico instead. That's simply not permissible under existing American asylum laws.

Link to source

Or so claims a liberal activist group. We'll have to wait and see what the courts actually decide. The proposed policy is no different than most European countries - you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you transit.

[SteveRogers]

This will be shot down in court simply because the US does not have a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico. The US only has such a law with Canada. Without that agreement with Mexico, US law does not recognize Mexico as a safe third country and, therefore, migrants cannot be rejected for asylum in the US on the basis that they should've applied for asylum in Mexico instead. That's simply not permissible under existing American asylum laws.

Link to source

Or so claims a liberal activist group. We'll have to wait and see what the courts actually decide. The proposed policy is no different than most European countries - you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you transit.

Here’s the statute in black and white.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

This isn’t something Trump can change unilaterally.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Then, perhaps, taxpaying Americans can demand the change through their elected representatives.

[cinyc]

This will be shot down in court simply because the US does not have a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico. The US only has such a law with Canada. Without that agreement with Mexico, US law does not recognize Mexico as a safe third country and, therefore, migrants cannot be rejected for asylum in the US on the basis that they should've applied for asylum in Mexico instead. That's simply not permissible under existing American asylum laws.

Link to source

Or so claims a liberal activist group. We'll have to wait and see what the courts actually decide. The proposed policy is no different than most European countries - you have to claim asylum in the first safe country you transit.

Here’s the statute in black and white.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158

This isn’t something Trump can change unilaterally.

Sure he can. All it takes is an agreement with Mexico - which is precisely what Trump was trying to get Mexico to sign last month during the NAFTA kerfuffle. He'd be more than willing to use NAFTA again as a bargaining chip to get that deal done. The agreement does not need to be a treaty. It also could be multilateral - so the Trump administration could argue that current treaties with Mexico or that Mexico is a signatory to are sufficient.

There are plenty of arguments that the Trump administration could make - and the courts aren't as packed with Democratic nominees as they used to be. Will Democrats find a Hawaiian (or whatever) judge or two to initially rule against Trump? Probably. But your preferred outcome isn't guaranteed in the circuit courts any more.

[Koharu]

This will be shot down in court simply because the US does not have a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico. The US only has such a law with Canada. Without that agreement with Mexico, US law does not recognize Mexico as a safe third country and, therefore, migrants cannot be rejected for asylum in the US on the basis that they should've applied for asylum in Mexico instead. That's simply not permissible under existing American asylum laws.

Link to source

It should be shot down, but there will be a lot of suffering in the meantime, and I don't have faith in the Supreme Court to uphold the actual law, and it will work its way there.