bmks270 said:

---

For those saying they are here legally….

If the executive can grant legal status, then why can't the executive also take it away?

That's the question.

---

I think they can and they will. But courts will most likely say it needs to be done in some sort of proper way (time).

That's why Noem's 30 days to leave announcement of TPS folks who originally were set to expire in April but got extended by Mayorkas in Bidens final week got held up in the courts. Ultimately Trump will win that argument that he can end their temporary status, but my guess is they might be forced to provide some sort of runway to properly allow folks to make arrangements to leave.

And it's important to note that a lot of the reasons courts are interfering is because the way the Trump administration is is carrying everything out is just very chaotic. He's going after everything as fast as he can which will invite scrutiny.

Had he started only with immediate deporting of true illegals and continued to root out and deport illegals, while submitting plans to end TPS in a more deliberate way (talking 3-6 months, not year) and also encouraging the courts to rule quicker in asylum cases then we wouldn't see all this craziness.

And then of course there's the EO citing the AEA to go after anyone they claim is in MS-13 or TdA even if they're here under those protected statuses to force them all out and send em to a prison in El Salvador. That is mostly fine imo, though it's a legal reach at least the intention is good. But the problem with that is his own DOJ initially admitted that one dude was sent there based on an error. So now it's a political football and both sides are digging in.

That said I still expect most of what they want to get done gets done, but they invited the fight with how they've gone about it.

Regarding that one dude, imo it'd be a more hilarious dunk on the left to go get him, bring him back and then just immediately deport him because they have every right to do so given he's a full illegal. But they've determined its worth more political points to not do it. Not sure I agree.

AgDadx2 said:

---

I will try my best but others feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know there are 2 groups who are here "legally" that we are dealing with, excluding student and work visas, etc. Asylum claims are done through the legislative branch because the law says that you can come into this country and claim asylum which gets you a future court date to prove you deserve asylum. I believe most of these are bogus. You also have TPS which is provided by the executive branch which by definition is temporary. The problem is the courts are forcing the admin to give each individual regardless of status to get a court date with an immigration judge before they get deported. This slows the whole process to a crawl. In theory, if executive branch awards someone TPS the E B should be able to remove them at will without due process. Hope this helps. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

---

The solution to the asylum issue is that you cannot claim asylum here if you first entered another country prior to making it to the US.

I googled this ass this is what I thought to be true also. I asked the question in google and here is what the answer was. Please let me know if this proves to not be true!

No, asylum seekers are not legally obligated to claim asylum in the first country they reach. The 1951 Refugee Convention, which forms the basis of asylum laws worldwide, does not require this. While some countries, like those in the EU, may have regulations like the Dublin III Regulation that encourage asylum claims in the first EU country reached, there is no international law requiring this.

AgDadx2 said:

---

I googled this ass this is what I thought to be true also. I asked the question in google and here is what the answer was. Please let me know if this proves to not be true!

No, asylum seekers are not legally obligated to claim asylum in the first country they reach. The 1951 Refugee Convention, which forms the basis of asylum laws worldwide, does not require this. While some countries, like those in the EU, may have regulations like the Dublin III Regulation that encourage asylum claims in the first EU country reached, there is no international law requiring this.

---

Correct, but we can pass legislation requiring it here and the asylum issue goes away.

Gotcha!

Tom Fox said:

---

AgDadx2 said:

---

I googled this ass this is what I thought to be true also. I asked the question in google and here is what the answer was. Please let me know if this proves to not be true!

No, asylum seekers are not legally obligated to claim asylum in the first country they reach. The 1951 Refugee Convention, which forms the basis of asylum laws worldwide, does not require this. While some countries, like those in the EU, may have regulations like the Dublin III Regulation that encourage asylum claims in the first EU country reached, there is no international law requiring this.

---

Correct, but we can pass legislation requiring it here and the asylum issue goes away.

---

Ding ding ding. This is why I wish Trump had more tact. Take care of the low hanging fruit now(pure illegals, criminals violating their status etc), don't invite court battles and confuse the entire voting public on what's going on, and use your complaints about the current system to push for congress to change the law. If they won't now, use that as ammo to push for a bigger majority in the midterms and it doubles down on what got you re-elected in the first place.

As it is, the situation is now red hot and has opened the door for dems to make gains in hotly contested areas because the Trump admin loses control of the narrative. And thus we'll get more inaction by Congress.

It doesn't matter what he does or how he does it. The media will make it look "chaotic" and "cruel." Look no further than DOGE.

The democrats will not support anything he does, no matter how good it is for America.

They're trying to bring back illegal alien terrorists, for ****'s sake.

Jack Boyette said:

---

It doesn't matter what he does or how he does it. The media will make it look "chaotic" and "cruel." Look no further than DOGE.

---

DOGE was also the same playbook. Very hasty and created confusion.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

The democrats will not support anything he does, no matter how good it is for America.

They're trying to bring back illegal alien terrorists, for ****'s sake.

---

We don't need the dems. My point is by being more deliberate and planning out strategies, Trump could grow the GOP majority and get the bigger, tougher and more important things passed by a bigger majority in congress than have to rely on executive order and the courts mucking everything up due to that.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Jack Boyette said:

---

It doesn't matter what he does or how he does it. The media will make it look "chaotic" and "cruel." Look no further than DOGE.

---

DOGE was also the same playbook. Very hasty and created confusion.

---

Do you run a business? I run 2. How long do you take to cut line items in a budget meeting?