https://www.apnews.com/23f6b9a087e841188c5484cd5cf04f3d US, Guatemala sign agreement to restrict asylum cases The Trump administration signed an agreement with Guatemala Friday that will restrict asylum applications to the U.S. from Central America. The so-called “safe third country” agreement would require migrants, including Salvadorans and Hondurans, who cross into Guatemala on their way to the U.S. to apply for protections in Guatemala instead of at the U.S. border. It could potentially ease the crush of migrants overwhelming the U.S. immigration system, although many questions remain about how the agreement will be executed. This should greatly stem the flow of asylum seekers at our southern border. Trump has had a really good week.
oh honey... "hey guys, we can stay in Guatemala, trip's over." I wonder how much the US tax payer had to bribe the Guatemalans to sign this agreement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/world/americas/trump-guatemala-asylum.html They may not want to apply for asylum in Guatemala, but they won't have a choice under this agreement. Here are some more details from the NYT article: Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, described the document signed by the two countries as a “safe third” agreement that would make migrants ineligible for protection in the United States if they had traveled through Guatemala and did not first apply for asylum there. Instead of being returned home, however, the migrants would be sent back to Guatemala, which under the agreement would be designated as a safe place for them to live. As far as the cost, it sounds like it came down to the threat of tariffs. Trump's bully pulpit was successful once again.
Wonder if applying is enough to continue the trek north? Doesn't matter though, the courts have ruled Trump & homeland is wrong on this one until SCOTUS overrules the standing decision.
I'm not sure. The official details of the agreement haven't been released yet. We'll have to see how this plays out in court. I'm sure it will probably be struck down at the lower levels, but I doubt it will be at the Supreme Court. They upheld the travel ban, so I can't see them striking this down. You never know though. At least there's some hope that there's a light at the end of the tunnel for our border crisis.
it's just posturing for the loss they took two days ago https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-asylum-restrictions-southern-border-n1033756 Federal judge issues preliminary injunction blocking Trump asylum restrictions at southern border U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California issued the preliminary injunction blocking the new asylum restrictions after grilling Justice Department lawyers. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California issued the preliminary injunction blocking the new asylum restrictions Wednesday afternoon, just hours after a hearing where he grilled a government attorney over the new sweeping change to asylum policy. The policy, announced by the Trump administration last week, would broadly end asylum eligibility for migrants who pass through another country on their journey to the United States' southern border with Mexico, but do not attempt to seek the protection in those other countries first.
This is a good agreement and will make the migration to US more orderly. President Donald Trump doing everything he can to secure the US border while, Democrats continue to try and sabotage efforts to secure the US borders! US voters will be reminded when the elections rolls on November 8, 2020 next year!
What part of the word illegal don't they understand? https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/trump-asylum-ban-ruling/index.html Trump asylum ban is illegal, federal judge rules Washington (CNN)A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Friday threw out a Trump administration policy barring migrants who illegally crossed the border from seeking asylum, finding that it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. The administration's policy, signed last November, aimed to temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the southern border from seeking asylum outside of official ports of entry. "[A]liens have a statutory right to seek asylum regardless of whether they enter the United States at a designated port of entry, and defendants may not extinguish that statutory right by regulation or proclamation," wrote District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee. Late last year, a federal judge in California blocked Trump's asylum ban and the Supreme Court later upheld the judge's order. "Today's decision is a big deal for what it portends -- that the administration's new asylum policy is likely to be wiped off the books," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "But its practical impact will be more modest, because the policy was already on hold thanks to a nationwide injunction against it from a California court -- one that the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, refused to stay last December."