WEBVTT - Trump To End Asylum Protections in Latest Crackdown

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.560
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump is

0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:25.400
<v Speaker 1>ratching up his crackdown on the number of people crossing

0:00:25.440 --> 0:00:29.360
<v Speaker 1>the US Mexico border, moving to end asylum protections for

0:00:29.480 --> 0:00:33.839
<v Speaker 1>most Central American migrants who crossed the US southern border.

0:00:34.720 --> 0:00:38.360
<v Speaker 1>The President's new move reverses the decades old approach on

0:00:38.440 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>asylum that the US has had, and the new policy

0:00:41.400 --> 0:00:45.480
<v Speaker 1>is sure to attract legal challenges. Joining me is Leon

0:00:45.520 --> 0:00:49.199
<v Speaker 1>Fresco Apartment at Holland and Knight Leon, who will be

0:00:49.240 --> 0:00:53.040
<v Speaker 1>prohibited from seeking asylum under this new rule published in

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:56.720
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Register. Well. Under the new rule, it appears

0:00:56.760 --> 0:01:00.600
<v Speaker 1>that anybody who enters the United States and did so

0:01:00.720 --> 0:01:05.520
<v Speaker 1>by by by traveling and around via a third country,

0:01:05.560 --> 0:01:08.280
<v Speaker 1>if they did not seek asylum in that third country

0:01:08.319 --> 0:01:11.720
<v Speaker 1>and were denied or were not able to seek asylum

0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 1>based on some very compelling factor, all of those individuals

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:19.440
<v Speaker 1>will be denied. So basically, anybody who crossed through the

0:01:19.480 --> 0:01:23.840
<v Speaker 1>Mexican border that's not Mexican will basically be barred from

0:01:23.840 --> 0:01:27.760
<v Speaker 1>obtaining asylum if this regulation is allowed to persist. So

0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:31.839
<v Speaker 1>US law allows refugees to request asylum when they arrive

0:01:31.920 --> 0:01:34.319
<v Speaker 1>at the US, regardless of how they got there. But

0:01:34.360 --> 0:01:37.600
<v Speaker 1>there is an exception for those who have come through

0:01:37.640 --> 0:01:41.160
<v Speaker 1>a country considered to be quote safe. So does this

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:45.720
<v Speaker 1>new rule fit within that exception? So interestingly, that's not

0:01:45.840 --> 0:01:48.640
<v Speaker 1>the exception that cited in the making of the rule.

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:52.240
<v Speaker 1>The rule does not claim that these third countries are

0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:56.080
<v Speaker 1>safe third countries because the safe third Country provision makes

0:01:56.080 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 1>it clear that what it says is is that you

0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.400
<v Speaker 1>can be removed to a country where there is an agreement,

0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>and we don't have agreements with these countries, so there's

0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:10.880
<v Speaker 1>not a removal. What they're using instead is a different

0:02:10.960 --> 0:02:15.399
<v Speaker 1>exception that exists in that same statute, which says, quote unquote,

0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:20.160
<v Speaker 1>the Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and

0:02:20.200 --> 0:02:24.040
<v Speaker 1>conditions consistent with this section under which an alien shall

0:02:24.080 --> 0:02:27.440
<v Speaker 1>be ineligible for asylum. And so what they're saying is

0:02:27.480 --> 0:02:32.560
<v Speaker 1>because the statute allows additional limitations and conditions, they're just

0:02:32.600 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>going to add one called you pass through a third country.

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:38.680
<v Speaker 1>And the question is what part of the statute is

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:41.800
<v Speaker 1>going to be viewed as more compelling, this part that

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:44.960
<v Speaker 1>says you can add factors, or the part that specifically

0:02:45.040 --> 0:02:47.840
<v Speaker 1>discusses third countries and says you have to have an

0:02:47.880 --> 0:02:51.400
<v Speaker 1>agreement before you can cancel someone out because of a

0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:53.799
<v Speaker 1>third country. And so that's going to be the debate

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:57.000
<v Speaker 1>in the court. So the a c l U has

0:02:57.080 --> 0:03:02.120
<v Speaker 1>said that this rule is patently unlawful and will sue

0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:07.480
<v Speaker 1>swiftly in the courts. Which argument do you think would

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:11.160
<v Speaker 1>win the day? Well, I think both sides can be

0:03:11.200 --> 0:03:13.880
<v Speaker 1>at least comfortable that they have an argument that one

0:03:14.000 --> 0:03:18.079
<v Speaker 1>judge or another would agree. I don't think either side

0:03:18.120 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 1>has a slam dunk argument. I think if I was

0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:25.600
<v Speaker 1>just fifty fifty had to make a choice at gunpoint,

0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:29.640
<v Speaker 1>I would say that probably the fact that the Congress

0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:36.400
<v Speaker 1>created a statute that described how third country UH disqualification

0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:40.320
<v Speaker 1>would occur means that you can't then create a new

0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:45.520
<v Speaker 1>third country disqualification that's inconsistent with the third country disqualification

0:03:45.560 --> 0:03:49.680
<v Speaker 1>of Congress. You could create other factors that disqualified an

0:03:49.720 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 1>asylum seeker. So, for instance, let's say you became a hacker,

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:56.960
<v Speaker 1>and hacking wasn't contemplated in so you could say any

0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>asylum seeker who was a hacker won't get asylum. Okay,

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:02.880
<v Speaker 1>that's the kind of thing they were thinking about. But

0:04:02.960 --> 0:04:06.840
<v Speaker 1>when Congress actually described the criteria for a third country

0:04:07.160 --> 0:04:11.960
<v Speaker 1>and didn't list this criteria, the argument is probably going

0:04:12.040 --> 0:04:15.400
<v Speaker 1>to come out that it's inconsistent with what Congress wanted.

0:04:15.920 --> 0:04:17.920
<v Speaker 1>So this is going to end up in the courts,

0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 1>where many of the administration's recent attempts to stop border

0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:24.920
<v Speaker 1>crossings have failed. But the administration just got a rare

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.440
<v Speaker 1>win in a sanctuary city case at the Ninth Circuit

0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:32.360
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals, which President Trump has repeatedly complained about.

0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:36.320
<v Speaker 1>Tell us about that. Well. So this case is interesting

0:04:36.400 --> 0:04:40.719
<v Speaker 1>because it wasn't like the other sanctuary city cases where

0:04:40.760 --> 0:04:43.760
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice has said, if you don't enforce

0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:46.919
<v Speaker 1>immigration law, we're not giving you any federal grant funding.

0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:49.640
<v Speaker 1>This case was a little bit trickier because what it

0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:53.080
<v Speaker 1>did was there was a point system that every city

0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:56.120
<v Speaker 1>could apply with in order to get federal funding for

0:04:56.160 --> 0:05:01.359
<v Speaker 1>police officers, and it gave extra points for or the

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:04.640
<v Speaker 1>issue of whether a city was allowing ICE to get

0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 1>criminal detainees out of its jails. And so Los Angeles

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:11.719
<v Speaker 1>didn't want to get those extra points because it didn't

0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>want ICE to have access to its jails. And so

0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:17.039
<v Speaker 1>it suited and it said you shouldn't give extra points

0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:22.680
<v Speaker 1>to anyone because this this due condition wasn't created by Congress.

0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:26.160
<v Speaker 1>If Congress wanted that, it would have created this condition.

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:29.720
<v Speaker 1>And the courts disagreed to to one and said, yes,

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:32.960
<v Speaker 1>Congress didn't create that condition. But Congress basically gave a

0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:37.479
<v Speaker 1>blank check to the Department of Justice to create any

0:05:37.560 --> 0:05:40.160
<v Speaker 1>point system it wanted, and so it could add this

0:05:40.279 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 1>factor if it wanted to, as long as it wasn't

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:46.839
<v Speaker 1>a factor that was so unreasonable that it violated the Constitution.

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:51.640
<v Speaker 1>So that's in the Ninth Circuit. Do do cities that

0:05:51.680 --> 0:05:54.080
<v Speaker 1>are in, for example, the Second Circuit have to listen

0:05:54.120 --> 0:05:57.280
<v Speaker 1>to that? Well, no, exactly. This is being challenged all

0:05:57.279 --> 0:05:59.080
<v Speaker 1>over the country and it has been barred in the

0:05:59.160 --> 0:06:02.839
<v Speaker 1>third circuits, Second Circuit, and this is probably there's probably

0:06:02.839 --> 0:06:05.160
<v Speaker 1>gonna be what's called on bank review in the Ninth

0:06:05.160 --> 0:06:09.920
<v Speaker 1>Circuit where the individuals who piled this lawsuit, the City

0:06:09.920 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 1>of Los Angeles will probably seek an eleven judge panel

0:06:13.400 --> 0:06:16.400
<v Speaker 1>to review the decision of the three judge panel and

0:06:16.440 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 1>see if they can overturn it. And so most likely

0:06:18.880 --> 0:06:21.480
<v Speaker 1>this case ends up in the Supreme Court at some point.

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:24.799
<v Speaker 1>But the stakes are not as high as a pure

0:06:24.920 --> 0:06:27.400
<v Speaker 1>ban on grant funding. This is just can you get

0:06:27.480 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 1>preference on grant funding? And so this is why I

0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:33.719
<v Speaker 1>think the Ninth Circuit had a little bit more sympathy

0:06:33.800 --> 0:06:37.000
<v Speaker 1>for it. Also, let's just return for a moment to

0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:41.200
<v Speaker 1>the asylum questions. The Trump administration says that, you know,

0:06:41.240 --> 0:06:44.400
<v Speaker 1>the changes are meant to close the gap between that

0:06:44.520 --> 0:06:48.159
<v Speaker 1>initial asylum screening, which is called the credible fear interview,

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:53.000
<v Speaker 1>and the final decision on asylum. To the vast majority

0:06:53.240 --> 0:06:57.040
<v Speaker 1>of immigrants claim they have a credible fear of returning home,

0:06:57.360 --> 0:07:00.960
<v Speaker 1>and just that is that usually affirmed, right, So what

0:07:01.040 --> 0:07:05.080
<v Speaker 1>happens is this, if you're applying for asylum when you

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:08.280
<v Speaker 1>can't when you enter the United States, then you you

0:07:08.800 --> 0:07:12.120
<v Speaker 1>first survive and get to stay until your claim is heard.

0:07:12.320 --> 0:07:15.160
<v Speaker 1>If you can survive what's called the credible fear standard,

0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 1>which has about a nine success rate, because you basically

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:22.640
<v Speaker 1>have to show that there's a significant possibility that you

0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:26.320
<v Speaker 1>have a reasonable fear of removal, and the people view

0:07:26.320 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 1>that as like that you have a one or two

0:07:27.960 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 1>percent chance of success, and that gives you enough to

0:07:31.360 --> 0:07:34.760
<v Speaker 1>to move on. But if you're not eligible for asylum,

0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:36.800
<v Speaker 1>then the only way you can stay is if you

0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:40.360
<v Speaker 1>get something called withholding of removal, which then is a

0:07:40.440 --> 0:07:43.600
<v Speaker 1>much harder standard to prove, and you basically have to

0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:45.960
<v Speaker 1>show that you have a fifty percent chance of being

0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:50.240
<v Speaker 1>persecuted if you return home, and so that gets granted

0:07:50.240 --> 0:07:52.600
<v Speaker 1>at a much much lower rate. And so that's what

0:07:52.680 --> 0:07:55.600
<v Speaker 1>the White House is trying to accomplish. And you know,

0:07:56.080 --> 0:07:59.160
<v Speaker 1>the rates here are complicated in terms of how many

0:07:59.200 --> 0:08:02.720
<v Speaker 1>people are winning these claims because the statistics are all

0:08:02.720 --> 0:08:06.720
<v Speaker 1>over the map. The statistics sometimes site cases where people

0:08:06.760 --> 0:08:09.120
<v Speaker 1>didn't end up going to court, and it's not clear

0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:11.520
<v Speaker 1>if people had noticed to go to court or not,

0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:15.520
<v Speaker 1>and so people will say people lose or some people

0:08:15.520 --> 0:08:18.600
<v Speaker 1>will say people win, because they'll only count. You have

0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:22.280
<v Speaker 1>to leave it there. Thanks, thanks so much. It is

0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:25.440
<v Speaker 1>a very very confusing area of the law. Thanks so much.

0:08:27.640 --> 0:08:30.600
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law podcast. You can

0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:34.360
<v Speaker 1>subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcasts, SoundCloud

0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:38.360
<v Speaker 1>and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:38.840 --> 0:08:40.120
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg