General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsConway Defends Trump's Call To 'Get Rid Of Judges'
(Talking Points Memo) White House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Sunday defended President Donald Trumps call earlier this month to get rid of judges.
The President is saying, lets stop having one or two judges in this country make immigration law for an entire country, thats Congress job, Conway said in an interview on NBCs Meet the Press.
But its not clear at all thats what Trump meant. And, while federal judges have stopped much of the Trump administrations attempts to keep migrants and asylum seekers out of the country, immigration judges are members of the executive branch, and have been subject to precedent-setting decisions from the Trump administration itself.
Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for example, instructed immigration judges last year that domestic violence and gang violence ought not be considered grounds for asylum. (A federal judge halted Sessions instruction.) Sessions also instituted a quota system for immigration judges to pressure them to resolve cases more quickly, among other changes meant to fast-track deportation orders.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that Attorney General William Barr could attempt to institute massive changes in the immigration court system in an attempt to speed deportations and deny more asylum requests.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conway-defends-trumps-call-to-get-rid-of-judges
Hekate
(90,793 posts)struggle4progress
(118,338 posts)Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)Yes, he could attempt it, but even illegal immigrants in this country are protected by the Constitution.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)This is meant to be a 'political asylum' situation, by definition.
Asking to be allowed to switch your citizenship to another country because your old man hits you, I'm sorry ... but that's not 'political asylum', which is what our current laws are meant to address.
I'm not saying I'm not open to the idea that the law be changed to allow for it (in fact I'm quite open to it) ... BUT ... I do not think that current law was meant to be applied in that particular scenario.
Rampant gang violence, I can countenance that if it is known that in this particular country, the government lacks to power/strength to counter the gangs ... or if it is simply bought off. That is basically a scenario that mimics a civil war, which is definitely along the lines of what our policy is predicated on.
THAT BEING SAID, what Trump was actually saying was that he hates that it becomes a 'court case' every time someone steps foot onto our land from another country. It was very obvious from the context, and it had nothing to do with any particular small group of judges being able to set our 'immigration policy'.
KAC is full of shit on this one, as always.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She is so ignorant. So she would have to think the same of the tax court to be consistent. And the cases can be appealed to the federal courts. If they had to take them directly, theyd be overburdened. Isnt she is lawyer! So is she lying or has forgotten it all ?
C_U_L8R
(45,020 posts)no matter what the law says. Or compassion demands.