The legality of Trump's Remain in Mexico policy is questioned

[Stevicus]

Trump administration appears to violate law in forcing asylum seekers back to Mexico, officials warn

Under the Migrant Protection Protocols — better known as Remain in Mexico — Trump administration officials have pushed 37,578 asylum seekers back across the U.S. southern border in roughly seven months, according to Homeland Security Department reports reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. One-third of the migrants were returned to Mexico from California. The vast majority have been scattered throughout Mexico within the last 60 days.

While their cases wind through court in the United States, the asylum seekers are forced to wait in Mexico, in cities that the U.S. State Department considers some of the most dangerous in the world. They have been attacked, sexually assaulted, and extorted. A number have died.

In dozens of interviews and in court proceedings, current and former officials, judges, lawyers and advocates for asylum seekers said that Homeland Security officials implementing Remain in Mexico appear to be violating U.S. law, and the human cost is rising. Testimony from another dozen asylum seekers confirmed that they were being removed without the safeguards provided by U.S. law. The alleged legal violations include denying asylum seekers’ rights and knowingly putting them at risk of physical harm — against federal regulations and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the foundation of the U.S. immigration system. U.S. law grants migrants the right to seek protection in the United States.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are writing the phrase “domicilio conocido,” or “known address,” on asylum seekers’ paperwork instead of a legally required address, making it nearly impossible for applicants stuck in Mexico to be notified of any changes to their cases or upcoming court dates. By missing court hearings, applicants can then be permanently barred from asylum in the U.S.

The courts seem to be divided and/or undecided on the question of the legality of these policies. The article mentions that some US officials have resigned because they can't carry out these policies in good conscience. Others are apparently disregarding the policy at the risk of being fired.

 

[shmogie]

Trump administration appears to violate law in forcing asylum seekers back to Mexico, officials warn





The courts seem to be divided and/or undecided on the question of the legality of these policies. The article mentions that some US officials have resigned because they can't carry out these policies in good conscience. Others are apparently disregarding the policy at the risk of being fired.

The UN standards, which of course aren´t applicable, state that one seeking asylum should apply in the first country they enter.

Dragging your family thousands of miles across a number of countries to get the best deal isn´t allowed under the UN standard.

The statistics speak for themselves, most released with a court date never show up for their court date. They are in the wind.

A high percentage, very high, of those whose cases are adjudicated are not granted asylum.

These people are economic migrants. They are not fleeing racial, religious, or political persecution.

They legally have no right to asylum.

They come for the goodies the government and living in the US can provide them, always as a net loss to the US taxpayer.

If being poor by our standards qualifies one for residence and support by the government, then most Africans, South Americans and others have a right to residence and benefits from the US.

It is very sad they are poor, but it is interesting that those who shout that the US cannot be the policeman of the world, demand that it support the world.

Trumps policy appears to be legal. The usual suspects will go judge shopping, find a friendly liberal judge, and get an injunction.

Democrats have always ignored the will of the people, and sought the courts to promote their goals.

 

[ecco]

Democrats have always ignored the will of the people, and sought the courts to promote their goals.

Based on the vote totals, it was the will of the people to have Hillary Clinton as President.

In 2000 it was the Republicans who went to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed President.

You are either being very hypocritical or you are ignorant of history.

 

[Enoch07]

Based on the vote totals, it was the will of the people to have Hillary Clinton as President.

That's why we have the EC. To avoid the tyranny of the majority.

 

[columbus]

That's why we have the EC. To avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Because the tyranny of a minority is sooooo much better.
Tom

 

[Enoch07]

Because the tyranny of a minority is sooooo much better.
Tom

You enjoyed the benefit of it for the past 20 years, you'll survive.

 

[columbus]

You enjoyed the benefit of it for the past 20 years, you'll survive.

You mean like, the Bush Wars and the Republican Recession?

Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

Based on the vote totals, it was the will of the people to have Hillary Clinton as President.

In 2000 it was the Republicans who went to the Supreme Court to get their guy appointed President.

You are either being very hypocritical or you are ignorant of history.

That is not quite accurate. Florida was a a mess from the start. While polls were still open in the heavily Republican pan handle news sources declared Gore the winner. That was an error due to incompetence but it still could be argued that it would have suppressed some Republican votes. Second it was so close it automatically triggered a recount which Bush won. Then Gore used a flawed and illegal strategy of asking for a recount only in heavily Democratic areas. It was an illegal strategy because manual recounts tend to increase the total votes in an election. By choosing only heavily Democratic regions they all but guaranteed an increase in Gore's count more than Bush's count. It was a failed strategy because even using this strategy there were not enough Gore votes to overturn the election. What Gore should have done from the start was to ask for a statewide manual recount. He had a valid case for it. But since he already wasted his chance on requesting an illegal recount he used up his one chance to demand a recount.

Now if Gore had done this properly he would have likely won a statewide recount of votes:

2000 United States presidential election recount in Florida - Wikipedia

Gore should have won but he lost due to his own actions. Calling Bush appointed is not accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean like, the Bush Wars and the Republican Recession?

Tom

The recession was worldwide. In the U.S. actions by both parties led to the home mortgage collapse. That the recession occurred under Bush is not all his fault, just as the gains in the economy now are hardly due to Trump's actions.

 

[Enoch07]

You mean like, the Bush Wars and the Republican Recession?

Tom

More like gay rights etc.

Yall just need to grow the eff up. You whined the whole time you was in the minority, now that you are in the majority, still whining. Sheesh

 

[Shiranui117]

That's why we have the EC. To avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Actually no, we have the EC because we're not electing a President to preside over the people, we're electing a President to preside over the union of States. So it's the States which pick the President.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You are either being very hypocritical or you are ignorant of history.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually no, we have the EC because we're not electing a President to preside over the people, we're electing a President to preside over the union of States. So it's the States which pick the President.

More specifically, we have the EC because wealthy slave owners were worried about the growing number of city abolitionists.

 

[Enoch07]

Actually no, we have the EC because we're not electing a President to preside over the people, we're electing a President to preside over the union of States. So it's the States which pick the President.

You're not wrong, but it's all apart of the checks and balances to insure no single branch of the govt can rule with an iron fist.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia

"The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness of majority rule in which the majority of an electorate can and does place its own interests above, and at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.[1] American founding father Alexander Hamilton, writing to Thomas Jefferson from the Constitutional Convention, argued the same fears regarding the use of pure direct democracy by the majority to elect a demagogue who, rather than work for the benefit of all citizens, set out to either harm those in the minority or work only for those of the upper echelon or population centers. As articulated by Hamilton, one reason the Electoral College was created was so "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications".[2]

The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

• Centralization excess: when the centralized power of a federation make a decision that should be local, breaking with the commitment to the subsidiarity principle.[3]Typical solutions, in this condition, are concurrent majority and supermajorityrules.
• Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".[4] The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.

In both cases, in a context of a nation, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, and the introduction of a Bill of Rights have been used to counter the problem.[5] A separation of powers (for example a legislative and executive majority actions subject to review by the judiciary) may also be implemented to prevent the problem from happening internally in a government."

So yeah the EC is one of tools the individual States have to keep the balance of power in check.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So yeah the EC is one of tools the individual States have to keep the balance of power in check.

How does letting Florida, Ohio & Michigan decide presidential elections "keep the balance of power in check?"

 

[Enoch07]

How does letting Florida, Ohio & Michigan decide presidential elections "keep the balance of power in check?"

They don't, if you won only those 3 states with the EC you would lose the Presidency.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump administration appears to violate law in forcing asylum seekers back to Mexico, officials warn





The courts seem to be divided and/or undecided on the question of the legality of these policies. The article mentions that some US officials have resigned because they can't carry out these policies in good conscience. Others are apparently disregarding the policy at the risk of being fired.

There is a Zone which we call the non-constitutional zone that are along our borders. I don't see any issue if there are facilities set up to accommodate those who seek Asylum to settle the legality question once and for all.

Personally I'm all for annexing the problem countries and ending it at the source.

 

[Shiranui117]

How does letting Florida, Ohio & Michigan decide presidential elections "keep the balance of power in check?"

This is making the argument that, just because a state fluctuates between the two major parties come election day, it enjoys more power than the rest of the states which consistently go for one party or another. One could very well conceive of different political coalitions and party platforms yielding results wherein different states would be swing states.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is making the argument that, just because a state fluctuates between the two major parties come election day, it enjoys more power than the rest of the states which consistently go for one party or another.

That's right. And it's true.

One could very well conceive of different political coalitions and party platforms yielding results wherein different states would be swing states.

That's right: while the EC is almost certain to create unfair distortions and put disproportionate power in the hands of only a few states, the specific unfair situation in effect at the moment can vary over time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They don't, if you won only those 3 states with the EC you would lose the Presidency.

If you win those states plus the states that are "locks" for your party, you win. A small number of swing states end up being disproportionately important in the election.