Washington, DC, Several immigrant rights groups in the United States, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum demands.
This issue is the last attempt to oppose Trump’s militant policies, which targeted people already in the country as well as those looking for safety from abroad.
Like other continuous lawsuits against the Trump administration, on Monday complaint He claims that the president has passed his constitutional authority and violated the current law.
Currently, it is legal that seekers of asylum to the United States express if they escape persecution.
Lee Galent, deputy director of the immigrant rights project in the American Civil Liberties Union, said, statement.
“There is no president with the power to overcome protection from one side of the protection that the Congress has provided those who flee the danger.”
The complaint refers to local legislation and international treaties that require the United States government to allow individuals to apply for asylum. This includes the Immigration and Nationality Law (INA).
“Through the Immigration and Nationality Law, Congress established a comprehensive legal system that allows non -citizens to escape persecution or torture to search for protection in the United States,” says the lawsuit.
“Under the declaration, the government does what the Congress issued under the statute that the United States should not do. It is returning asylum seekers – not only single adults, but also families – to the countries where they face persecution or torture.”
Announcement one day
On Monday, a complaint aims at one of the statements made by Trump on the first day of his second term.
Soon after his inauguration on January 20, Trump revealed a document Entitled “Ensuring the Protection of the State against the invasion”.
In this, he announced that illegal immigrants “reside with the summons of INA provisions that allow their continuous presence in the United States.”
The Republican leader cited the dangers of “national security” as well as the possibility of “infectious disease” as the logical basis. He also argued that the southern border of the United States was “mired” with entries.
“Therefore, I am directing this entry to the United States from these foreigners until he issued a discovery that the invasion on the southern border had stopped,” Trump wrote.
The Republican leader made a long campaign on a strict immigration approach, including the idea of closing the borders for asylum seekers.
His offer to his re -election for 2024 was defined by the same Firebrand speech, including national assurances that the United States has been overlooked by a migrant “invasion”.
Trump has repeatedly blamed people with unimaginable people in the country’s problems, from violent crime to unemployment.
backlash
But groups such as Aclu sought to retreat against Trump’s policies, using the court system to question its legal advantages.
In the Monday case, the lawsuit argues that Trump’s declaration not only contradicts American law, but also his obligations under international treaties.
For example, the United States has approved the 1967 protocol related to the situation of refugees, a treaty that defines refugee protection.
In a statement on Monday, Jennifer Babai, Director of Legal Services and Legal Services at the Center for Defense for Immigrants in Las America in Texas, said that the lawsuit shows that it and others “will not stand at all as our immigration laws manipulate.”
“Regardless of the individual beliefs of anyone over migration, any governmental attempt to violate our laws starkly is a serious issue that affects all societies throughout the country,” Babai said.
The group that is based in Texas is one of the four prosecutors appointed in the case, along with the Texas Civil Rights Project, the Refugee Center, the Legal Education and Legal Service (RAICES) and the Florence Rights and Refugee Rights Project.
A wave of legal challenges
However, the immigration measures taken by Trump in the first weeks of his second term go beyond the search for asylum.
Even in the early hours of his presidency, Trump has signed many executive measures designed to reduce immigration and expel people who have already been documented in the United States.
Trump has increased immigration enforcement activities, the forces rose to the American border, hung the American refugee program for 90 days, and canceled an online request used by asylum seekers to set a date for immigration in the United States.
Some asylum seekers had been waiting for months for the appointments they booked on the application, known as CBP One. The application of the application launched their scheduled meetings, leaving them for forgetfulness.
In the aftermath, rights groups launched a legal challenge that questions one CBP solution.
Other legal challenges are seeking to oppose Trump’s expansion in the “expedited removal” operations, which would quickly expel the unconfirmed individuals from the country.
Others have sought to cancel the stopping order that stopped financing legal services for migrants detained in detention.
Meanwhile, calling groups and many state governments have submitted at least five lawsuits against Trump’s executive order that seeks to end citizenship in the United States.
A federal judge in January soon prevented Trump’s order, describing him as “starkly unconstitutional.”