There’s been some rapid fire developments involving President Trump’s new asylum rules, which require seekers to apply in the first safe country they come to. This is to prevent economic migrants from country shopping and abusing the already overwhelmed asylum process. Seems like common sense, right?
Well, if you are a judge on the 9th Circuit, not so much. Judge Tigar originally put a nationwide injunction in place. Then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him. Then he simply put the injunction back in place. The Supreme Court had seen enough though and finally made a ruling vacating the entirety of the injunction and slapping Judge Tigar back down to earth.
While the decision was 7-2, this didn’t sit too well with Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee to the highest court. She ranted against her colleagues for the decision they made.
“Once again the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Although this Nation has long kept its doors open to refugees — and although the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher — the Government implemented its rule without first providing the public notice and inviting the public input generally required by law.”
You know what this sounds like? A baseless emotional appeal. The vast majority of asylum seekers are not escaping persecution. For those that are, Mexico provides a safe haven for them to evade immediate danger. The point of asylum is not to go find a better life and opportunity. It’s to prevent bodily harm. Trump’s new policy, partnering with the Mexican authorities, does just that.
We simply do not have the resources to accept every single person who wants to claim asylum. Especially not when well over 80% of cases are fraudulent.