Categories: world

9th Circuit mulls Trump WH policy to return asylum seekers to Mexico temporarily

SAN FRANCISCO – Another Trump administration's immigration control effort preceded the critical eye of the 9th US Criminal Court on Wednesday – and seems likely to lead to similar fate as previous government programs that court judges struck. The Wednesday case before a third panel examined the legality of the Home Security Migration Protection Protocol (MPP) Department, an initiative announced in December to address what was called "dramatically escalating burdens for unauthorized migration, causing irreparable damage." The idea : For migrants from Central America who have crossed the US border and requested that asylum be returned to Mexico temporarily. MPP was designed to provide relief to congested US detention facilities by targeting people who were unlikely to succeed with asylum applications. Judge Paul Watford raised the issue of how immigrants have been treated and whether the government gave them a fair opportunity to express their concern about returning to Mexico &#821 1; even if it was temporary. "I don't understand how it is arbitrary and pleasurable," Watford says about current protocols that do not require cross-border agents to ask if fear immigrants may have about staying in Mexico. Judge Diarmuid O & # 39; Scannlain, a Reagan employee who seemed to be positively exposed to the government's case, asked the lawyer representing migrants held in Mexico why her customers would rather remain in the United States than having free movement in Mexico . "We do not want to be in Mexico. We would rather be in the United States," Judy…

Another Trump administration’s immigration control effort preceded the critical eye of the 9th US Criminal Court on Wednesday – and seems likely to lead to similar fate as previous government programs that court judges struck.

The Wednesday case before a third panel examined the legality of the Home Security Migration Protection Protocol (MPP) Department, an initiative announced in December to address what was called “dramatically escalating burdens for unauthorized migration, causing irreparable damage.”

The idea : For migrants from Central America who have crossed the US border and requested that asylum be returned to Mexico temporarily. MPP was designed to provide relief to congested US detention facilities by targeting people who were unlikely to succeed with asylum applications.

Judge Paul Watford raised the issue of how immigrants have been treated and whether the government gave them a fair opportunity to express their concern about returning to Mexico &#821

1; even if it was temporary.

“I don’t understand how it is arbitrary and pleasurable,” Watford says about current protocols that do not require cross-border agents to ask if fear immigrants may have about staying in Mexico.

Judge Diarmuid O & # 39; Scannlain, a Reagan employee who seemed to be positively exposed to the government’s case, asked the lawyer representing migrants held in Mexico why her customers would rather remain in the United States than having free movement in Mexico . “We do not want to be in Mexico. We would rather be in the United States,” Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU replied.

Outside the House after the hearing, Rabinovitz, who said she was cautiously optimistic for a favorable judgment, continued to say “we have … heard of people who were kidnapped and got death threats – did not matter – they returned to Mexico. “

Judge William Fletcher criticized the government’s legal justification for the migrants it placed in Mexico according to existing laws that seem to have given separate classifications for different types of asylum seekers.

” We have dogs and cats going to the pound, but do not make a dog to a cat or vice versa, “Fletcher, appointed by President Clinton, analogy. President Obama appointed Watford.

BASIC LEADER INJURY IN NEW MEXICO JAIL FIGHT

Earlier this month a lower judge ruled that the Trump administration’s policy violates existing federal law and failed to provide sufficient protection for immigrants who feared their security in Mexico.

Judge Richard Seeborg issued a nationwide ban to immediately stop immigration authorities from placing migrants in Mexico President Trump blew the decision, tweeting: “A 9th Circuit Judge just decided that Mexico is too dangerous for immigrants. So unfair to US OUT OF CONTROL! “

But several days later, Seeborg’s ban temporarily stopped because each side could present Wednesday’s arguments. It led to another president tweet, ” Finally, good news on the border! “

Under the last 9 years, the 9th circuit has decided the trump manager’s travel ban and attempted to stop protecting for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA).

CLICK HERE TO FOX NEWS APP

The judges gave it The third floor court did not pack any guidance on when a decision was to be issued. The argument of the argument suggested that the stay should be lifted, but it was not clear whether the underlying prohibition would be preserved in its entirety or modified in a way that would keep MPP in place during a changed state. 19659003] If the judges decide to reinstate the ban, the government has requested that a weekend delay be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Share
Published by
Faela