White House Vows To Fight ‘Absurd’ Ruling Against Asylum Restrictions

Following the ruling, President Trump called the U.S. 9th Judicial Circuit, which includes the Northern District of California where U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar sits, “a disgrace.” (File photo by Alexis Egeland/Cronkite News)

By Vandana Ravikumar

WASHINGTON – The White House on Tuesday vowed to fight a federal judge’s ruling that temporarily blocked restrictions on asylum seekers, who administration officials said threaten to “incapacitate our already overwhelmed immigration system.”

U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar late Monday ruled that a Nov. 9 policy to deny asylum to immigrants if they do not turn themselves over at designated ports of entry “irreparably conflicts” with the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Tigar cited language of the act that says “any alien who arrives in the United States, irrespective of that alien’s status, may apply for asylum – ‘whether or not at a designated port of arrival.’”

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Tigar wrote.

He agreed with plaintiffs in the case who argued that letting the policy take effect would cause immigrants to “suffer irreparable injury” and face “increased risk of violence and other harms at the border.”

Tigar ordered the administration to return to the previous way of processing asylum applications and set a Dec. 19 hearing to determine if the injunction on the policy should be made permanent.

In a joint statement, the departments of Justice and Homeland Security said they will definitely defend the president’s use of his “authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

The statement from DHS spokeswoman Katie Waldman and Justice spokesman Steven Stafford said the current asylum system is “being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year.”

“It is lawful and appropriate that this discretionary benefit not be given to those who violate a lawful and tailored presidential proclamation aimed at controlling immigration in the national interest,” their statement said.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who argued that the asylum rule would have endangered immigrant lives and violated the separation of powers.

Administration officials called it “absurd” that those advocacy groups were found by “activist judges” to have standing to sue “so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled.”

But attorneys for the advocates said the asylum law is clear – and the administration clearly violated the law.

“There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a written statement. “Congress has been clear on this point for decades.”

One Arizona advocate applauded Tigar’s ruling.

“I think that rather than spending a lot of resources just whacking at the situation, people with values, moral values, can sit down at the table and try to figure out what’s going on,” said Petra Falcon, founder of Promise Arizona, a nonprofit that aims to build Latino political power.

Trump, speaking to reporters before heading to Mar-a-Lago for Thanksgiving, said he would “file a major complaint” in the case, adding that Tigar was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama. He added that the Northern District of California, where Tigar sits, is part of the U.S. 9th Circuit, which he called “a disgrace.”

“This was an Obama judge and I’ll tell you what, this is not going to happen anymore,” Trump vowed. “It means an automatic loss no matter what you do. People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case.”

But Falcon said the court did the right thing, adding that immigrants crossing the border need to get “due diligence” on their asylum applications, and that this ruling might bring them one step closer to getting it.

“There’s a reason people are seeking asylum, and they need to be heard,” she said.

About Cronkite News 2270 Articles
Cronkite News is the news division of Arizona PBS. The daily news products are produced by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.


  1. According to USCIS.gov these are the allowances for application for asylum:
    “Every year people come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution due to:

    Membership in a particular social group
    Political opinion

    If you are eligible for asylum you may be permitted to remain in the United States. To apply for Asylum, file a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your arrival to the United States. There is no fee to apply for asylum.

    You may include your spouse and children who are in the United States on your application at the time you file or at any time until a final decision is made on your case. To include your child on your application, the child must be under 21 and unmarried. For more information see our Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal page.”
    However, libtard Judge Tigor and his Winnie the Pooh friends also might want to check out this:
    “Asylum Bars

    You can be barred from both applying for and receiving asylum for certain actions.
    Bars to Applying for Asylum

    You may not be eligible to apply for asylum if you:

    Did not follow the one-year filing deadline and did not file your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, within one year of your last arrival in the U.S. or April 1, 1997, whichever is later.
    Had a previous asylum application denied by an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    Can be removed to a safe third country under a two-party or multi-party agreement between the United States and other countries.

    There are exceptions to these bars for “changed circumstances” or “extraordinary circumstances.” Both are defined in 8 CFR 208.4. For more information on the bars and the exceptions, see our Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations page.
    Bars from a Grant of Asylum

    You could be barred from a grant of asylum if we find that you:

    Ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
    Were convicted of a “particularly serious crime” such that you are a danger to the United States
    Committed a “serious nonpolitical crime” outside the United States
    Pose a danger to the security of the United States
    Have been firmly resettled in another country before arriving in the United States

    You will also be barred from receiving asylum if you are inadmissible because you:

    Have engaged in terrorist activity·
    Are engaged in or are likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity·
    Have incited terrorist activity
    Are a representative of a foreign terrorist organization
    Are a member of a terrorist organization
    Have persuaded others to support terrorist activity or a terrorist organization
    Have received military-type training from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization
    Are the spouse or child of an individual who is inadmissible for any of the above within the last 5 years

    For more information terrorist and national security bars, see our Bars to Asylum and Inadmissibility Grounds Related to Terrorist Activity page.”

    Frankly, I don’t see any of these invaders as “refugees.” They are not fleeing anything. They seem to be pretty fit-looking so if they had a mind to, and put as much effort into cleaning up their own neighborhood as they have marching (under their foreign flag – after having BURNED the flag of the sovereign nation they say they want to flee to), seems pretty cut and dried to me. They just don’t want to have to deal with the drug cartels, whore-mongers et al and want to get in on the U.S. gravy train aka Welfare. Also, we owe it to ourselves to vet each and every one of these fence-jumpers. Terrorists are here already, but to invite more with open arms…. Well, let’s face the elephant in the room and just make it plain: You can hardly tell the difference between a Latino and an Afghani. There, I said it. Let the flaming begin….

  2. It’s part of the Establishment’s attacks on the president — and the rest of us. It’s bait: ignore our false ruling and we’ll use it as grounds for impeachment. The ruling would certainly be overturned by the Supreme Court, but would take a long time, which the phony “judges” know.

    It’s a calculation as well as a continuation of hack politicians, loosely referred to as “judges” doing for the Establishment what cannot be passed in congress.

  3. And so I suppose Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, along with George W. Bush who appointed him, have morphed from conservative to liberal commie pinko immigrant-lovers? Maybe in King Donald’s twitterverse, but that’s not the real world. You can’t make America great by destroying the rule of law, or the Constitution.

    • You can’t make America great by destroying the rule of law, or the Constitution…. just ask Hillary Clinton ?

  4. It is my understanding that international law requires asylum seekers to apply for asylum in the first country they enter that provides asylum. In this case then, the country in which asylum should be sought by those in the caravans is Mexico, NOT the United States. A number of the caravan emigrants have in fact sought asylum in Mexico. Furthermore, once those in the caravans entered Mexico they no longer qualify as asylum seekers because there is no showing that they are being mistreated in Mexico and need to seek safety elsewhere, in the U. S. or any other country. In short, because they are safe in Mexico, these emigrants have no basis to seek, or qualify for, asylum in the U. S.

  5. “who argued that the asylum rule would have endangered immigrant lives and violated the separation of powers.”
    How about the danger to U.S. Citizens? Huh?, what about us? Who work and pay taxes and raise families, who fought wars to free people around the world, who send money totaling Millions to these countries? I’ve worked for 55 yrs and paid my taxes,My dad and uncle fought in WW2, my brother in-law went to Viet Nam because he was drafted, he didn’t run to Canada, he went like a dutiful citizen.
    Yeah, what about us? I guess we don’t count, and if that’s the way the judges see us as ATM slaves, then they better count their days on the bench, cause we will get their fat butts off and into the streets. They can find another job.
    And don’t think it can’t be done, “Where there’s a will there’s a way!

  6. Wait a minute – last night Wheel of Fortune gave away a multi-thousand dollar vacation package from Caravan Tours for Guatemala and Honduras. Tell us again why all those ‘migrants’, almost all young men, are running from a vacation destination and why they shouldn’t be treated as invaders? They’ll be eating their own soon in Tijuana.

    • WA – your vacation prize is hilarious! Its a very popular vacation destination – must be the appetite of the American for illicit sex,drugs and rock’n roll? Or is it just the lifestyle they seek…

  7. Wait a minute — that “activist judge” only maintained the status quo against arbitrary action by an activist president trying to rule by executive decree instead of by rule of law and due process. And the United States Constitution’s separation of powers makes the executive, legislative and judicial branches equal. It’s not about “Obama judges;” it’s about the rule of law. Just saying….

    There’s no question our immigration laws need an overhaul, but that will take bipartisan cooperation and negotiation rather than White House attacks and law suits. And we need to remember that many, maybe most, of those refugees are seeking asylum from violence and terror, unintended consequences of policies instigated by the U.S. in Central America. They are poor people without resources for lawyers and they deserve to be heard. Just like our immigrant ancestors.

    • Albert and just HOW did bho force daca on the country other than by royal decree and the left loves it. Now the president tries to do something for the country and the left is on their heads again. If one can rule by decree why cant the other? and since it was by royal decree how does the left justify the ruling that the ‘decree’ cannot be abolished since it IS NOT ACTUAL LAW?

    • Tell the politicians and the judges. One CA Congressman threatened
      nuclear war on owners of semi automatic rifles.

Comments are closed.