ACLU Takes on Trump: Legal Battle Over Asylum Rights at the Border!

Advocacy groups for immigration sues President Donald Trump’s administration concerning its restrictions to asylum access at the southern border. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) led the charge on February 3rd, claiming their impetus to file the lawsuit was over Trump’s latest asylum policy, which took the form of an executive order. The ACLU dubbed the decision “as unlawful as it is unprecedented” in a complaint that was lodged at a Washington federal court. Among other concerns, the lawsuit asserts that such widespread bans from Trump are substantially detrimental to those fleeing hostilities, and may even prove fatal for many.

Along with other immigration advocacy groups, the ACLU filed the complaint on behalf of the Arizona-based Florence Project, the Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, as well as RAICES, which is based in San Antonio, Texas. It was accompanied by a legal statement, which read: “The government is doing just what Congress by statute decreed that the United States must not do. It is returning asylum seekers – not just single adults, but families too – to countries where they face persecution or torture, without allowing them to invoke the protections Congress has provided.”

The White House has defended Trump’s actions, while the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement to the effect that it does not provide comment on pending legislation. Kush Desai, White House spokesman, said: “President Trump was given a resounding mandate to end the disregard and abuse of our immigration laws and secure our borders. The Trump administration will continue to put Americans and America First.”

In the details of his directive, Trump claimed that the scenarios encountered at the southern border signal nothing less than an invasion, and for America’s sake he was “suspending the physical entry” of immigrants until a point in which he can give further notice. Furthermore, the executive order goes on to block migrants who make requests to be granted asylum.

It is a significant crackdown from President Trump, and aside from the debate surrounding welfare for those caught between a proverbial rock and a hard place, it also serves to reignite the wider civil rights talks that spanned the president’s entire previous term in office.

For Trump, such moral debate can be handwaved in this instance – as he argued the Immigration and Nationality Act is indubitable in that it allocates all authority to the serving president in matters of authority over suspending entry. Any group that is identified as “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is liable to be on the receiving end of such measures so long as Trump has power to call the shots.

Unwarranted “Autocratic” Power?

In a press release from ACLU last week, the civil liberties union made reference to the “212(f)” proclamation (now superseded by Trump’s executive order), saying it cites an “invasion” as false justification to deny those protections that are explicitly granted by Congress – with the end result being that individuals, or often families, are left with no other option but to return to jurisdictions where they are likely to be prosecuted or harmed.

“This is an unprecedented power grab that will put countless lives in danger,” commented Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, Lee Gelernt. “No president has the authority to unilaterally override the protections Congress has afforded those fleeing danger.”

Jennifer Babaie, Director of Advocacy and Legal Services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, stated: “Once again, the Trump administration wants to eliminate the ability of families to seek safety in our country in the form of asylum, a legal pathway. Regardless of any person’s individual beliefs on immigration, any government attempt to blatantly violate our laws is a serious issue impacting all communities across the country. Spreading falsehoods about an ‘invasion’ at our border only fuels fear, aiming to dismantle the entire asylum process and weaponise our immigration laws. At Las Americas, we take our role of welcoming seriously and are committed to protecting it. We will not stand idly by as our immigration laws are manipulated.”

Richard Caldarone, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, noted: “This is the latest flagrantly illegal attempt by the executive branch to end humanitarian protection at the US-Mexico border. The immigration laws do not give the president autocratic power to override Congress and brazenly violate US treaty obligations related to the protection of refugees. This latest attempt to do so will make thousands of people vulnerable to persecution, torture and death, and we will not stop fighting until all those who require protection have the opportunity guaranteed by US law to seek asylum in this country.”

An End to Prior Freedoms

Trump’s executive order undoes the humane freedoms surrounding asylum access that had been implemented during the Biden administration, wherein systems were set in place for 1,450 people – each day – to arrange an appointment at a crossing conjoined with Mexico to make a claim for sanctuary in the US.

President Trump put paid to this programme just as soon as he was inaugurated, either shortly before or after reinstalling his infamous “Diet Coke tap” on his desk after former President Joe Biden had removed it during the previous term.

The New York Times was quick to point out, however, that Biden had not been completely lax on immigration policies himself, having placed key restrictions on those who had crossed over illegally last year. Although, Biden’s system did build in protective measures, such as access to the aforementioned appointments if they were carried out at official ports of entry or various other paths that have since been “closed or frozen” by Trump. In January, during which Biden was still president for the first half, Border Patrol logged almost 30,000 apprehensions of migrants who were crossing the southern border without authorisation. This was the lowest level on record since May 2020, a period that was of course dominated by COVID-19 and witnessed a drastic plunge in migrant numbers resulting from travel embargoes – as reported in unpublished government figures that were obtained by CBS News.

Looming large for Trump moving forward is his wide-ranging strategy to ensure mass deportation of migrants as he dismantles the remaining measures introduced by Biden to create routes and protection for access at the southern border.

Many Critics of Asylum Still Remain

There is a school of thought among American voters that few coming to the country for safe harbour ultimately qualify for it – and that it takes a protracted amount of time for the nation’s courts to determine such requests. Those seeking asylum are required to provide evidence of persecution threats while referring to stringent criteria that take only the following factors into account:

• Race;
• Religion;
• Nationality;
• Social placement;
• Political affiliation.

Although the facts of the matter continue to face debate, the Texas Tribune described Trump’s recent discourse as a “blueprint to beef up security”. The news outlet also opined that: “Actual execution of such a far-reaching immigration agenda is certain to face legal and logistical challenges. But Trump has made cracking down on immigration a top priority, just as he did during his first term.”

In a similar vein – and also as reported by the Texas Tribune – on Wednesday, February the 5th, a federal judge ordered a second country-wide pause on Trump’s order that sought to end birthright citizenship, affecting those born in America to someone who resided in the country as an undocumented immigrant, while referring to citizenship as a “most precious right”. US District Judge Deborah Boardman noted at the time that no court in the US has yet supported the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that Trump’s administration seems to espouse. “This court will not be the first,” she added.

Source:

Associated Press

References:

ACLU

Texas Tribune

New York Times

CBS News

Further Reading:

Trump Scores Major Legal Win: Cases Dropped!

VIDAL V. ELSTER. “TRUMP TOO SMALL”. THE DECISION.

For More Law Updates worldwide you can Follow Us @: Global Law Expert News.