Trump administration’s new rules seek to curb asylum claims

Trump administration’s new rules seek to curb asylum claims
Trump administration’s new rules seek to curb asylum claims
A severe and it’s not the best way forward, and it’s also and reminding efforts across the region at to devise a response that is coherent and collected movement of people from specially the north of Central America towards the u.s. in the u.s. big changes to immigration rules. Take effect today, they say that migrants at the US Southern border, who want to apply for Asylum, will not be considered if they have traveled through another country to get their the Trump Administration says they should seek asylum in the first country they enter after. They leave home. Those are the people who are arriving at the US border on foot are not Mexican. They often come from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, and because of this policy, hundreds of thousands of them could be an eligible for Asylum. So will the new rule hold up in court and what might happen in the meantime, Teresa Brown is a former official with the US Department of Homeland Security she’s. Now the director of immigration and cross-border policy at the partisan policy Center. She joins us now from Washington. Hummus Brown nice to see you again thanks for your time, I’m going to be here which one has the right to ask to apply for Asylum. The regulations in Plaistow do allow some amount of discretion on behalf of the United States government. Obviously the basic qualification is: do you qualify as a refugee under the internet conventions, but beyond that, the United States does have some laws and rules about people who may be excluded from attaining Asylum based on past behavior, for example, significant criminal activity, this regulation, as a New bar to eligible for Asylum, for anyone who is arriving at the southern border, as you said, who has crossed through another country and has not applied for asylum in that country, are the only exceptions to this would be if someone has applied and been denied in A prior country or they’re traveling to a country – that’s not a signatory to any of the national protocols or if there are other circumstances that that would prevent him from applying. But in practice it could apply to almost all asylum-seekers who are currently riding at the US. Mexico border, as you mentioned, the majority coming from the three Central American countries, but there are also significant numbers from places coming from places like Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Africa, other countries in the world as well. It would apply to them take some time to play through the court. So what do you think the impact of this will be more immediately? Well, those who are in charge of implementing it at DHS were given Direction on how to implement it just early this morning. So I imagined that there’s going to be confusion as it’s applied across the border as its policy is disseminated and as border officers are trying to figure out exactly how this is going to be applied. But as you mentioned, litigation is not just forthcoming. It’S happened. A clu just hours ago file an application for an injunction in federal court, arguing that this Asylum regulation is contrary to existing law. That requires us to at least accept applicants. Applicants for Asylum. The impact of this regulation is not to denies on litter to actually prevent people from applying, and I think that’s going to be a significant part of the litigation. What is the basis of the challenge? It’S going to cover a lot of things, one that it went through an emergency room making process that was not appropriate for this type of rule, so it will charge it will. It will argue that it wasn’t done appropriately under the room making Pro. They will argue that it’s contrary to existing US immigration law that is not consistent with our Asylum law and and also that it violates our International obligations, particularly obligation against, which said that we can’t return somebody to a country where they might experienced, torture with or or Or persecution, so those are the arguments we made in in the federal court. Obviously, we’ll have to see what the court does with that, but it is asking for an emergency injunction and in the past some of these have been issued within 24 8 hours, so stay tuned right now. What what is the status of where they stand? Most of what I read, it said: they’re not going along with the plan at this point, but that perhaps this could be some some motive of leveraged for the Trump Administration when it comes to negotiations with Mexico over things like this, what do you think basically helped? The United States, in its International diplomatic negotiations with Mexico and the three Central American countries, so explicit rationale for implementing this rule seems to be gaining leverage in negotiations. As we know, the United States has been trying to get a safe tree with Mexico. The Mexican government has said no we’re not interested in such a such an agreement. They’Ve also been trying to negotiate a group with Guatemala. The president was actually a Guatemala to actually supposed to come to the United States this week. That trip was canceled because the legislature in Guatemala suit in their constitutional Court, arguing he did not have the authority to conclude such an agreement, so that maybe one reason why the administration went ahead with this rulemaking, believing that otherwise they’re not going to be able to Push any of these ridgeback through into situations in Mexico or the Central American countries. That’S been the the Siri for this Administration. In addressing the situation the Border has been. How can we stop people from getting here and applying for asylum in? This is just another in a crazy things that they’ve tried to do that. Do you have any sense, though, of whether it will work and not so far, none in so far as actually stopping people, but working so far as getting Mexico and, for example, Guatemala? As you mentioned, I think it was Monday that that meeting was supposed to happen and it didn’t instead of changing the discussion at least well with Mexico. The Mexican foreign minister, I think, has been quoted as saying that it’s in the United States rulemaking until Mexico does not going to comment on the US domestic policy, but that they don’t necessarily believe that it is that that they would support doing that on so they’re. Trying to have it both ways, I think in Mexico they’re, obviously, very wary of the president has starts of tariffs. That is one of the reasons they agreed to step up their own enforcement. This was the week that that first 30 days 50 days of implementation, with supposed to be evaluated to see whether another part of the agreement that would start a safe there discussion we’re going to play. This seems to preamp. That so Mexico is, is, I think, being cautious about this. I’M not sure they are understanding of how it might have. Certainly, if, as migrants are no longer able to claim asylum in the United States unless they’ve applied somewhere else, you might see migrants making an initial application in Mexico first, they may have more of a burden of that, but I think again implement. This is a lot of questions about how it’s going to actually work down at the border. Do those questions me that there are again more questions over how those seeking Asylum, those caught in the middle of all this, how it will impact them like I’m, just wondering if that is for those people, are they in? How will I mean? Are they waiting for the legal challenge? What happens in the meantime? You know so so, because it has bits in place right now and unless I judge issues an injunction it it will be carried out. So anyone, for example, has been waiting out of Port of Entry in one of these list. Reply to Port of Entry now suddenly finds himself in eligible to apply, but those who decided not to wait and go between the ports of entry and made it into United States before this ruling into a fact are grandfathered. So they made it in so there’s there’s death. We are a question of fairness to the people who actually try to wait in line at the Port of Entry, which the government has been telling them to do for two years now, there’s also an issue of the migration protection protocols and so-called remain in Mexico policy. That policy is for people who are in proceedings in the United States that wait their proceedings in Mexico in this under this new regulation that would be set aside in favor of an expedited removal process and this hire bar to eligibility for a sign with people with. Let into the country, but probably removed faster, it’s unclear how those two policies would work together and who would apply to. This is some of the operational policy issues that I think are not clear at this moment and again. I think, at the end of the day, whether it’s going to impact migrants coming to United States is really going to depend on a lot of different factors, not just our own rulemaking. If, if applicants can’t file for Asylum legally, will they still try to enter the United States and instead of turning themselves into the Border Authority, try to evade the authorities and come in.? I will they think other routes in the United States is regulation only applies if you’re coming through the southern land border. So will we see more of them, try to come and see United States to other routes? I think we don’t yet know what implication. Does male have very much for your time and insight. Miss Brown, that’s Teresa Brown forest in Washington, preciate it for another video thanks for watching
The Trump administration introduced new rules to try to curb the number of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. Under the new measures, migrants who have failed to apply for asylum in the first country they travel to on their way to the U.S. will be ineligible to receive asylum.

»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos:

Connect with CBC News Online:

For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage:
Find CBC News on Facebook:
Follow CBC News on Twitter:
For breaking news on Twitter:
Follow CBC News on Instagram:

Download the CBC News app for iOS:
Download the CBC News app for Android:

For more than 75 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio,, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *