A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to migrants who illegally cross the southern border into the United States, saying the policy likely violated federal law on asylum eligibility.
In a http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/order-granting-temporary-restraining-order-against-trump-administration-asylum-policy/3318/ (ruling) late Monday, Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy. President Trump’s action was announced on Nov. 9, though the White House had as early as last month https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pentagon-plans-to-dispatch-800-more-troops-to-us-mexico-border-in-response-to-migrant-caravan/2018/10/25/6a121944-d868-11e8-83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html?utm_term=.5725c5461252 (floated drastic changes) to the way the United States affords sanctuary to people fleeing persecution in their home countries.
The judge’s order remains in effect until Dec. 19, at which point the court will consider arguments for a permanent order. The administration offered no immediate comment overnight but has routinely appealed adverse decisions.
We are now learning that the troops President Trump sent to the southern border are already being brought home, even as the first migrants in the “caravan” begin to arrive. In case you doubt that this whole exercise was a campaign stunt, note that since the election, Trump himself has gone oddly quiet about what he previously claimed was a national emergency.
But make no mistake: The legal battle over the fates of those generally seeking asylum here is very much alive, and the long-term stakes are very high.
A https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/20/blow-trumps-immigration-agenda-federal-judge-blocks-asylum-ban-migrants-who-enter-illegally-mexico/?utm_term=.14fc03ea4f75 (new court ruling released early Tuesday) underscores those stakes. Buried in the ruling is a warning from the judge: He flatly asserts that Trump is claiming the authority to close down the southern border to asylum claims entirely.
This attempted ban — which was delivered in a https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-addressing-mass-migration-southern-border-united-states/ that explicitly invokes the migrants and claims a border “crisis” — is pernicious on its face. As it is, applying for asylum in the United States is perfectly legal. With this proclamation, Trump is simply trying to restrict the ways people can do this. People fleeing violence, persecution or other severe threats don’t always have the opportunity to carefully plan their migration.
The http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/order-granting-temporary-restraining-order-against-trump-administration-asylum-policy/3318/ (new court decision) declares that this order runs afoul of federal law that “has clearly commanded that immigrants be eligible for asylum regardless of where they enter,” noting that the law explicitly says aliens can apply for asylum “whether or not” they entered “at a designated port of arrival.” For a full explainer on what the law says, see this Lawfare piece.
But for our purposes here, there’s something remarkable buried deep in the http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/order-granting-temporary-restraining-order-against-trump-administration-asylum-policy/3318/ (decision): The judge warns that Trump’s proclamation and the interim rule that went with it actually claim for Trump the authority to shut down the southern border to any and all asylum-seeking.
“The rule itself actually gives the President the ability to issue even more restrictive proclamations” later, the judge’s decision says. “The rule gives the President plenary authority to halt asylum claims entirely along the southern border.”