La semana pasada hablé sobre la crisis humanitaria para los refugiados afganos, así que hoy quiero abordar la crisis…
New US Asylum Policy
New US Asylum Policy
The US Supreme Court made a ruling last week about President Trump’s new asylum policy that is going to impact many people. In this video, immigration attorney, Andres Mejer discusses the court history of this policy and who it will impact.
Andres Mejer: Good morning welcome to the English program of the radio show. But I said Today we have four subjects for you. 1 Trump changes for asylum law how he wants to get rid of asylum altogether 2 Trump wants to hold immigrants families and children indefinitely. 3 talk about the Harvard freshman who tried to come into the United States got a full scholarship and customs border patrol said sorry you’re inadmissible because of comments on his WhatsApp page. And number 4 Trump ends protection for migrant medical care. We’re talking about individuals with life-threatening diseases that get life-saving treatment in the United States. He wants to end it. He did end it and he wants to deport all of them. What a surprise. My name is Andrés Mejer and I’m a published author public speaker and immigration attorney.
Andres Mejer: Trump administration can begin denying asylum in Mass. What does that mean? We know that Trump has tried to limit the number of people than the number of people that can apply for asylum in a day. He’s said those that are applying for asylum must wait in Mexico and he’s tried to eliminate whole categories of people like women fleeing domestic violence saying that’s not appropriate for asylum. So limit the number of people that can apply. Limit where they’re applying from meaning not coming into the United States, doesn’t want to give them employment authorization doesn’t want them in the US at all. And now he’s his new rule it says you know what. You can’t file for asylum at all. That’s where he’s going. He wants to bar asylum from all of Central America. So under this new plan migrants can’t apply for asylum unless they’ve already tried and failed to receive in another country they pass through. So if I’m from Chile and I apply for a visa but they don’t give it to me now Chileans nowadays like Europeans can just present a passport and they’re allowed back in. Let’s assume for purposes of conversation they can’t solve my father’s mother and Argentina. Let’s assume I’m from Argentina. I asked where I go to the U.S. embassy I asked for a visa. I get the night and say you know what. I got to go. I’m afraid for my life. I leave and hiking, bus, tour, train, whatever I go through Panama and Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico and then the U.S. and I finally get their act. This whole long ordeal and I say I presume south of the border I’m Andres Mejer and I want to apply for asylum.
Andres Mejer: The officer is gonna ask me what country my from how did I get here. Meaning to the U.S. border meet and I’m going to say I walked or I hiked or I trained or I rode or whatever. So you went through Mexico? Yes, you went through Guatemala? Yes.
Andres Mejer: ASYLUM DENIED! Well, I’m sorry. Did you apply for asylum in those countries? No, I did. They’re going to send me back to one of those countries if I’m from Guatemala. They will send me to Mexico. If I’m from El Salvador Honduras Nicaragua Costa Rica or Panama or further south. They will send me to Guatemala. This policy removes due process. It doesn’t even allow asylum officers to hear their case automatic denial because you didn’t apply for asylum in those countries. It doesn’t take into account where those countries are to save themselves and the US is saying because you pass through this other country you must apply for asylum there first. Mexico has refused a third party agreement. They said No way. Guatemala the outgoing president signed a third party agreement and the president who is coming in January said What are you crazy? I’m not doing that stuff. Now. It also needs to be approved by Guatemalan congress which that’s not happening either. So what the president essentially did is you know what. I don’t need a third-party agreement. I’m going to change the rules and say you must apply there first and if you don’t you don’t get to apply for asylum in the United States. Now a federal judge granted a nationwide injunction against implementation of this policy twice. So the first one said this is this ain’t happening. Then it went to the court of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A California judge and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said you know what. We’re going to stay the injunction. While the litigation goes on. So we will allow your administration to do what you’re doing outside of our jurisdiction that what they said Is this a nationwide injunction is inappropriate. It’s only limited to the 9th Circuit. California and in nearby states. Then it went back to the judge. The judge had heard more total testimony and said no nationwide injunction. You can’t implement this anywhere. Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved which they’d been doing fairly regularly. Historically it almost never happens. But in the Trump administration, it happens like every other day.
Andres Mejer: So without an opinion the Supreme Court stopped the injunction.
Andres Mejer: It’s one line since there was no written opinions. We don’t know who signed it. There was no actual vote. We do know that there are two strong dissents one by Sonia Sotomayor and another one by Bader Ginsburg.
Andres Mejer: So the issue will come back before the Supreme Court but in the meantime lots of immigrants are going to be sent back.
Andres Mejer: Thank you for joining us. Any questions or comments please just put it down below. Subscribe to our page share our video. If there’s anything in particular you’d like me to address in the future. Just posted below we’ll review it and maybe we’ll talk about it next week.