quote:

The Trump administration moved Monday to effectively end asylum for any migrant who arrives at the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormous shift in U.S. immigration policy that could block hundreds of thousands of people from seeking protection in the U.S. — and is certain to draw legal challenges.

The new rule, published in the Federal Register and set to take effect Tuesday, would bar asylum claims for nearly all migrants from any country. It would do so by prohibiting claims from anyone who has passed through another country en route to the U.S., which essentially would cover anyone other than Mexican residents.

Only in rare cases, such as when a migrant applies for asylum elsewhere and is denied, would a person be eligible to apply for protection in the U.S.

The rule would, in effect, nearly wipe out U.S. asylum law, which establishes a legal right to claim protection for anyone who arrives at the U.S. border and can make a case that they face torture or persecution at home. The law applies regardless of how a migrant reaches the border.

The law currently provides a major exception in cases in which the U.S. has negotiated a “safe third country” agreement with another government. Under those agreements, such as the one the U.S. has with Canada, migrants must apply in the first safe country they reach.

The new proposal would short-circuit that, effectively requiring migrants to apply in any country they land in, whether the U.S. formally considers that country safe or not.

he new rule was issued by the Justice and Homeland Security departments, which administer the asylum system, and it was written to take effect immediately when it’s formally published on Tuesday. It would apply only to those arriving to the U.S., not migrants already in the country.

The sweeping change drew an immediate threat of a legal fight

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:
Stephen Miller, one petty, vindictive, hate-filled dweeb, lies awake at night dreaming this stuff up.

quote:

The Trump administration is considering a virtual shutdown of refugee admissions next year — cutting the number to nearly zero — according to three people familiar with the plan.

During a key meeting of security officials on refugee admissions last week, a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services representative who is closely aligned with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller suggested setting a cap at zero, the people said. Homeland Security Department officials at the meeting later floated making the level anywhere from 3,000 to 10,000, according to one of the people.

The proposal for a near-shutdown of the refugee program is alarming officials at the Department of Defense, who don’t want to see a halt in admissions of Iraqis who risked their lives assisting U.S. forces in that country. The possible move comes after the Trump administration cut refugee admissions by a third this year, to 30,000.

If the administration shuts down refugee admissions, it would give President Donald Trump a powerful talking point as he makes immigration restrictions a centerpiece of his reelection campaign.

At the same time, it would strand thousands of people already far along in the process and damage the ability of resettlement agencies to process refugees in future years, according to advocates tracking the issue.

“In the long-term, it would mean that the capacity and the ability of the United States to resettle refugees would be completely decimated,” said Jen Smyers, a director with Church World Service, one of the nine U.S. resettlement agencies.

quote:

USCIS official John Zadrozny and the State Department’s Andrew Veprek — both known as Miller allies — argued in the meeting that the refugee cap should be low because of ongoing security concerns and the ability of the U.S. to offer humanitarian protections through the asylum process, according to an attendee.

While the two programs similarly protect people facing persecution, refugees apply for protection from overseas, while asylum seekers apply once they’ve arrived at the border or entered the U.S. on a legal visa. Proponents of the refugee program contend it offers the U.S. diplomatic and military leverage internationally beyond its humanitarian aims.

But even as Trump officials weigh dramatically cutting refugee admissions, the administration also has sought to greatly reduce the availability of asylum. A sweeping regulation issued this week would block migrants who pass through another country en route to the U.S. from seeking asylum. The measure — already the subject of two lawsuits — could choke off the majority of asylum claims.

The Miller allies asserted at the meeting that the refugee determination didn’t matter because it was a ceiling, not a floor, and the administration still retained the discretion to admit fewer people, according to one of the people with knowledge of it.

quote:

Shortly before a Supreme Court decision on Friday that handed President Donald Trump $2.5 billion for in border wall funding, he received another big win for his immigration agenda: a treaty designating Guatemala as safe for asylum-seekers.

On Friday afternoon, the US and Guatemala signed an agreement that will direct Central American migrants who pass through Guatemala hoping to seek asylum in the United States to first apply for protection in Guatemala instead. Those who travel to the US without applying for asylum in Guatemala could be removed by US border officials to that country.

According to a new rule implemented by the Trump administration earlier this month, people seeking asylum at the US border will be turned away if they passed through another safe country — a “safe third country,” as they are called — before reaching the United States.

The deal signed Friday by Guatemalan Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart and Trump, alongside acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan, technically designates Guatemala as such a safe third country.

Notably, it does not do so due explicitly, likely due to Guatemalan controversies over third safe country deals and legal barriers to such an agreement erected by Guatemala’s court system. Nevertheless, the move is expected to curb migration from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, the Central American countries from which the bulk of asylum-seekers at the US border originate. ....

The agreement comes after months of talks, a cancelled visit to Washington from Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales, and threats from the Trump administration of tariffs if an agreement was not reached.

Trump celebrated the treaty as a victory on Friday, calling it a “landmark agreement” that will “put the coyotes and smugglers out of business.”

Morales was less optimistic, saying on social media on Friday that the deal will help Guatemala to escape “drastic sanctions.”

Many details of the agreement, which would last for two years, remain murky. It does not apply to “unaccompanied minors” — children who arrive alone to the border — or to Guatemalans seeking asylum, according to a Spanish-language version of the agreement released on Twitter. The White House has not yet released its own version of the agreement.

quote:

A decision issued Monday by Attorney General William Barr will restrict the ability of migrants to claim asylum based on their family relations.

In a precedent-setting immigration court opinion, Barr said that simply being part of a nuclear family targeted for persecution doesn’t qualify as a “particular social group” eligible for asylum in the United States.

“The fact that a criminal group — such as a drug cartel, gang, or guerrilla force — targets a group of people does not, standing alone, transform those people into a particular social group,” the attorney general wrote.

President Donald Trump has sought to restrict access to asylum, which his administration views as a magnet that draws migrants north from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessionsissued a similar immigration court decision in June 2018 that blocked asylum for victims of domestic violence and gang violence, a move that drew condemnation from pro-migrant advocates. A federal judge based in Washington, D.C., blocked key parts of a policy related to the decision six months later.

Barr’s ruling will guide future decisions in the immigration courts, which are not part of the federal judiciary and fall under the purview of the Justice Department. Barr highlighted that authority in the ruling Monday, saying “the attorney general has primary responsibility for construing and applying provisions in the immigration laws.”