Conflicting Rulings on Asylum Restrictions ⚖️
One says yay, the other says nay
The Trump administration's attempt to enforce asylum restrictions has been both sustained and blocked by two federal judges on the same day. As we reported previously, the immigration policy in question withholds asylum for migrants crossing Mexico to the US. The policy was met with legal backlash from multiple immigration advocacy groups.
Right back at ya
Early Wednesday morning, US District Judge Timothy J. Kelly in Washington DC ruled that Trump's asylum policy could remain during the progression of multiple lawsuits centered around it. Hours later, US District Judge Jon Tigar, who halted an earlier Trump asylum policy, blocked the same restrictions in a separate California lawsuit hearing.
The right frames Judge Tigar's block as a defeat to the administration's mission and focus on Judge Kelly's claim of insufficient evidence. They also mention that reducing the number of asylum seekers would alleviate pressure on federal agencies and detention facilities.
The left focuses on the effects of asylum restrictions on migrants at the southern border, which include exposure to more dangerous conditions and a prolonged process to enter the US. They also highlight that Congress, not the president, has the authority to determine whether a particular group can seek asylum.
Where's the common ground?
Unfortunately, there is not much common ground between those who support and those who oppose immigration at the southern border. Much of the disagreement lies with the effects of Pres. Trump's policies and his authority to carry them out.
Fo' real though.
Share this story!