As The Daily Wire reported last month, a liberal Obama judicial nominee in California ruled against President Donald Trump's "wait-in-Mexico" policy for prospective asylum-seekers arriving at our beleaguered southern border. The Washington Times reported at the time:
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop its new policy of sending asylum-seekers who jumped the border back to Mexico to wait while their cases proceed, ruling Monday that the plan was likely illegal.
Known informally as the "wait-in-Mexico policy," and officially as the Migrant Protection Protocols, the plan was a major part of the administration’s moves to try to stem the flow of immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally.
Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee to the bench, said ... it may be possible to come up with a policy that would be legal, with sufficient safeguards, but the Trump administration’s version doesn’t cut it.
Now, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the left-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has temporarily stayed Judge Seeborg's ruling, pending the continuation and ultimate resolution of the underlying merits litigation in the federal judiciary. Per Fox News:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals late Tuesday granted the Trump administration's request to send asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait out court proceedings temporarily.
The court order reversed a decision by a San Francisco judge that would have blocked the policy — giving President Trump a temporary victory on immigration.
The case must still be considered on its merits at a lower court in San Francisco and could end up at the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg ruled April 8 that the policy should be halted while a lawsuit, filed on behalf of 11 asylum applicants and several other organizations, proceeds.
The Trump administration's "wait-in-Mexico" policy, initially formulated in December by then-Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, was intended as a humanitarian measure that would keep migrant parents and children together and not subject them to the judicially concocted strictures of the much-ballyhooed Flores consent decree — the administration's abiding of which led many illegal immigration advocates to cry foul about enforced child-parent separation at the border.
As I have observed before, large swaths of the migrant influx are motivated due to the dissemination in Central America's "Northern Triangle" region of misleading information about U.S. asylum law. Our asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), is operative for those who are persecuted in their native countries for "race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." For instance, ethnic Yazidis persecuted in Islamic State-overrun Iraq should qualify — but purely economically motivated migrants simply hoping to "seek a better life," in the abstract, should not.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection broke records in March with its astoundingly high crossings/apprehensions data, and all signs point toward the April numbers being even more worrisome.
In an interview last month with Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro, I ran through the recent history of erroneous judicial decisions and institutional judicial self-aggrandizement that have helped bring us to this crisis point at the border.