Back in August the 9th Circuit Court rejected a lower court decision on a Trump Administration Asylum rule. The rule required prospective asylees to stay in Mexico while their claim was processed. A federal judge had put a nationwide stay on the rule. The 9th said, no you don’t.
It can only apply in your jurisdiction; California and Arizona.
They sent it back to the Oakland judge to reconsider it. He did or didn’t then announce his stay could apply to the entire country and reinstated it again on Monday.
Little more than one full day later the 9th Circuit is back with the same response. You still cannot impose this stay nationwide while the suit winds through the courts. It can only apply within your jurisdiction which includes California and Arizona.
Leftists and supposed-immigrant groups are crying foul. I’m not sure why.
California is the place to be.
Street livin’ is a right you see!
Dirty needles, turds, and rare disease.
Just like home but with a heck of a lot more fleas.
Meanwhile in What Was Once the 9th Circus of Hell
We are impressed at least partially by this double-tap. It has been a bone of contention, certainly around here, that activists can go judge shopping and get a decision that affects all 50 states. This makes no sense. The only Court with that authority is Scotus and before you say anything, it is limited to overturning laws that violate the US constitution.
Judge Podunk in Left Butternut should not be able to wave a Turkey-Feather Quill and make the nation his bitch. Doubly so for puffy-liberal benchwarmers living above crime-riddled starts playing at dispensers of justice. But that’s been the way of things. For the traditionally liberal Ninth to step in twice and point out the rules as they should be is stunning.
That issue, if resting just a bit uncomfortably, leaves us with this one.
At issue is the fate of thousands of migrants from the violence-wracked nations of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The administration’s policy, which took effect July 16, made them ineligible for U.S. asylum because they passed through another country, Mexico, without seeking refuge there. The policy exempted only victims of human trafficking, who are still allowed to apply for asylum
That’s the leftist San Francisco Chronicle’s language. Which matters. Because there are liberal cities in this country that are more “violence-wracked” than “Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.” By all accounts, we’d be doing them a disservice by letting them pile into locales more dangerous and disease-infested than those they are said to be escaping.
If it’s that a big a deal where’s the full-throated defense for allowing inner-city kids from Baltimore to seek asylum in a safer central America?
As with gun control safety is a word they use that has nothing to do with their goals. Nothing. The borderless utopia is about getting out the vote. As long as they live long enough to elect more Democrats the left could care less what their lives are like before, during, or after the election.