THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Just another victory for President Trump and his administration!
One of Trump’s core campaign promises was that he would be tougher on illegal immigration.
The Democrats, though, have opposed him every step of the way.
They’ve filed lawsuit after lawsuit, along with groups like the ACLU, in an effort to prevent the President from doing his job.
Well, today in a 7-2 Supreme Court ruling, the highest court in the country sided with the Trump Administration over how much power the executive branch holds with regard to deportations.
Check out the full details from Fox News on the ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday for the Trump administration in a key immigration case, determining that a federal law limiting an asylum applicant’s ability to appeal a determination that he lacked a credible fear of persecution from his home country does not violate the Constitution.
The ruling means the administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge. The 7-2 ruling applies to those who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation.
In a decision in the case of Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the court ruled that the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) – which prevents judicial review of the credible fear determination – does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause, which protects habeas corpus privileges that allow courts to determine if a person should be released due to unlawful detention.
“In this case, however, respondent did not ask to be released. Instead, he sought entirely different relief: vacatur of his ‘removal order’ and ‘an order directing [the Department] to provide him with a new . . . opportunity to apply for asylum and other relief from removal,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion, ruling “that relief falls outside the scope of the common-law habeas writ.”
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan national, had crossed the southern U.S. border without documentation in January 2017, was apprehended within 25 yards of the border, and detained for expedited removal. According to court documents, he said he was afraid of returning to Sri Lanka because he had once been abducted and beaten by a group of men, but did not know who they were or why they attacked him. At the time, he said that he did not fear persecution due to his political beliefs, race, or any other protected characteristics.
As a result, an asylum officer determined that he did not have the requisite “credible” fear of persecution. A supervisor agreed and signed off on a removal order, which was then affirmed by an immigration judge who had heard additional testimony. This led to Thuraissigiam filing a habeas corpus petition for unlawful detention, which a federal District Court denied. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision, ruling that the law was unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court reversed this with Thursday’s ruling.
Alito’s opinion also shot down the argument that the IIRIRA violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, citing an 1892 decision that ruled that for “foreigners who have never been naturalized, nor acquired any domicil or residence within the United States, nor even been admitted into the country pursuant to law,” decisions of administrative or executive officers exercising powers granted by Congress amount to due process.
The Supreme Court ruled that someone in Thuraissigiam’s position – being apprehended within 25 yards of the border – should be treated the same as someone who was taken into custody at the time they attempted to enter the country, and therefore the 1892 decision applies.
The Trump administration is seeking to expand authority so that people detained anywhere in the U.S. and up to two years after they got here could be quickly deported. On Tuesday, a federal appeals court threw out a trial judge’s ruling that had blocked the expanded policy. Other legal issues remain to be resolved in the case.
Take a look at some of the responses on Twitter:
Not only is Trump working overtime on illegal immigration, he's also working to limit the inflow of legal immigrants into the country.
Many argue that legal immigrants, particularly those coming in on visas like the H1-B visa, take jobs from Americans.
And that's something we don't need in the middle of a pandemic-produced recession.
Here's CNN's detailing of the President's new order on legal immigration:
The Trump administration's executive order this week dramatically curtailing legal immigration to the US sent hundreds of people and businesses into a scramble to understand whether their future plans are now derailed.
The employment-based visas targeted by the administration are tailored for a range of jobs in the US, including in health care, education and tech industries. There are some exceptions, like people treating Covid-19 patients or conducting research to help the US combat the pandemic. Still, thousands stand to be affected.
The Migration Policy Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC, estimates some 167,000 temporary workers will be kept out of the United States as a result of the new restrictions, which took effect on Wednesday.
The administration argued, in the proclamation, that the "extraordinary circumstances" posed by coronavirus called for the suspension of employment-based visas. But immigrant advocates, industries, and experts say the administration is taking advantage of the pandemic to make sweeping changes to the nation's immigration system and advance its agenda to slash legal immigration.
Watch the CBS report on the Supreme Court's latest ruling right here: