The lawsuit by pro-migration, pro-caravan groups against President Donald Trump’s border policy will get a hearing on November 19 in a San Francisco courtroom.
The judge is expected to freeze Trump’s pro-American reform and allow the growing number of caravans and asylum-seeking economic migrants to ask for asylum, get released, take jobs and force down average wages for blue-collar Americans.
The Trump policy has been operating since Saturday.
It allows migrants who arrive at the ports of entry to apply for full asylum. But the policy penalizes illegal migrants by preventing them from applying for a full asylum once they are caught sneaking over the border.
Illegal migrants are still allowed to apply for a limited asylum, dubbed “withholding of removal.” That policy prevents illegals from using the asylum system to get released to find jobs, it eases their deportation and pressures them to go home without earning enough money to pay off their smuggling debts to the cartels.
The lawsuit will be heard by an English-born judge, Jon S. Tigar. He was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2012 to a seat on the very progressive, migrant-friendly Ninth Circuit. He is widely expected to direct border officials to freeze the border policy, by imposing a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order.
The pro-migration groups include the ACLU. They argue in their lawsuit:
The President’s power to suspend or restrict entry pursuant to INA § 212(f) does not encompass the ability to limit the forms of relief available to noncitizens once they have entered the country, nor does his power pursuant to INA § 215(a)(1).
In response, Trump’s legal deputies will tell the judge that the President has the authority to guard the borders from the cartels’ labor-trafficking.
Once the judge freezes the reform, Trump’s deputies will ask the Supreme Court to cancel the freeze pending the San Francisco trial, the appeal decision, and the final judgment by the Supreme Court in 2019 or 2020.
In June, the Supreme Court upheld the President’s strong authority to decide who is allowed to enter the United States. But it is not clear how the Supreme Court will rule in this case.
Trump builds a regulatory wall against the establishment-approved inflow of wage-cutting migrants. His determined policy was made possible by departed AG Jeff Sessions, and will be far more effective than Trump’s concrete-and-rebar border wall. https://t.co/ixVyvWTsyw
— Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) November 9, 2018
The asylum law cited by the ACLU limits the President’s power. It says:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
Federal judge in California has set a hearing for Nov. 19 on the ACLU’s challenge to the Trump administration’s efforts to limit asylum eligibility. Previously from @Haleaziz: https://t.co/gH2moJLv6c pic.twitter.com/0QBDnU6zsK
— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) November 13, 2018
Alongside the lawsuit, border officials are gradually implementing many reforms set by former Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions that can help border officials quickly deport economic migrants before they released into the United States to get jobs.
Washington’s economic policy of using migration to boost economic growth shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor. That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees.
The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least five million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because coastal investors can more easily hire and supervise the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.