Trump Intends to Enforce Immigration Law
Dostoyevsky once stated that “Sarcasm is the last refuge of those with no real argument.” However, when someone follows it with an argument then it is a useful tool for gaining the attention of those who are slow to give credence to an important issue. In the present case, it is not surprising at all that the ACLU, who appears to have become more anti-American and the legal wing of the extreme Democrat Party, is filing a case in the 9th Circuit. Most people see the 9th Circuit as the most Liberal and known to be the most overturned court in the United States, to overturn a new agency rule on Asylum Reforms. The assault on the enforcement of immigration law in the United States, which is part and parcel to the far-Left agenda, seems to be coming to a head as President Trump attempts to enforce the law even as radical politicians conspire with illegal immigrants to violate it.
So what does the new rule on immigration mean? First of all, it is news sites that are reporting it as an executive order; it is not. The new rule is an agreement between the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. In this rule, the departments state that those who are attempting to leave prosecution and torture in their home country, have a right to asylum – but they do not have the right to “forum shop.” Just because a person is being oppressed does not create a golden ticket to live, for free, wherever they choose. When refugees move out of their country into another country, they must first apply for asylum in each country that they pass through. If that country denies them asylum, then the United States will review their case. If the people have not applied for asylum in another country, then they are not refugees – they are migrants and illegal aliens.
How the Immigration Process Normally Works
The radical Left is already complaining about how this rule is “unfair.” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, stated “This is the Trump administration’s most extreme run at an asylum ban yet. It clearly violated domestic and international law and it cannot stand.” But does it? I would challenge Gelernt’s assertion. Black’s Law Dictionary defines refugees as “people who have been allowed to reside in the United States indefinitely to protect them from persecution in their home country…”
There are several elements in this definition, which the current refugee crisis does not cover. First, the refugees who are entering the country illegally have not been “allowed” into the country. Asylum is a legal process and, while courts have created a bastardized “wet foot, dry foot” policy, immigrants who enter the country illegally are not eligible for asylum because they have not followed a proper process to enter the country. Second, when an illegal immigrant leaves their country and enters into another country, in which they are not being persecuted, they lose the ability to “shop” for the best country. Once they are “safe,” they are the responsibility of the country in which they are residing. Since Mexico is seen as a developed country and has offered the migrants asylum in Mexico, they are not entitled to enter the United States just because they feel the United States is better than Mexico. So under the widely accepted legal definition of refugee, Gelernt’s assertion that the rule violates US law is questionable.
To test the second part of the claim, we need to look at the international definition of a refugee. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951 (The Convention) is the international law which governs refugees. The Convention states, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…” Once again, the refugee status of the migrants is not in question; they may be refugees in the countries through which they passed to reach the United States. However, since the definition states that they cannot be returned to their home country because of persecution when they have passed through a nation which has offered them asylum, they lose the ability to look for a better claim of asylum. Therefore, the United States has no obligation, either moral or legal, to “re-offer” asylum because the “persecuted” have turned their nose up at Mexico’s offer.
The Left Simply Wants to Stop Trump
The reality of the situation is that the ACLU and their Democrat masters in Washington cannot afford to allow the Trump administration a “win” on immigration policy. Once the Democrat line that there is no “crisis at the border” broke with rank and file members admitting that we did have a humanitarian crisis, the Party leadership went into panic mode.
If Trump helps solve the immigration crisis by ending the list of “free things” that illegal immigrants come to the United States for, he will be fulfilling yet another of his campaign promises. Since he has already achieved more campaign promises than his last four predecessors combined, Americans across the country are noticing that the country is getting better. With each lawsuit and with each double standard, the people of the United States are seeing the peeling veneer of The Swamp fade away and expose the corruption that is rampant within both parties. While Trump is less than perfect, he is “cleaning house” in a way that we have not seen since the Democrat plantation owners of the Confederacy were expelled from the House and Senate during the Civil War. Time will tell if we make the same mistake our forbearers did and let the corrupt back in after President Trump leaves the office.
This case by the ACLU is a farce; it is a stall tactic by the Left to slow down the success of a man who is not a politician who is keeping many campaign promises. They are hoping above hope that President Trump is not re-elected and that those who have made fortunes in politics will be able to return to business as usual in Washington. With Trump keeping promises left and right, the biggest threat to his success in the 2020 election is not one of the Democrat candidates, especially those like Beto O’Rourke and Cory Booker who are soliciting people to file fraudulent asylum claims at the border; his most significant threat is that he will complete all that he promised and will not have anything to do for a second term.
Stop the ACLU
This ACLU case needs to be stopped, call the federal courthouse in San Francisco (415-625-2755) and let them know that this case is a farce and the ACLU’s 1967 payment should be terminated (they are not protecting civil rights, they are promoting a political agenda). Also, call the ACLU main office and Headquarters in New York and ask them to represent the rights of American’s before they move to bring in more illegal immigrants (212-549-2500). Be respectful, be polite – we do not win these fights by being jerks but by being Americans.