Open border advocates quietly secured a legal victory after U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that Customs and Border Protection agents were not sufficiently trained to conduct an initial screening of asylum applications.
The U.S.-Mexico border remains largely shuttered by the coronavirus — including asylum requests, which are suspended. However, Leon’s decision could significantly hinder the Trump administration’s attempt to limit the arrival of asylum seekers once the status quo at the border returns. (Hot Air)
You can get a sense of the level of judicial seriousness on display here by noting that Judge Richard J. Leon actually used the word “Poppycock” with an exclamation point in the text of his ruling. He determined that the two to five weeks of training that CBP employees receive when learning to conduct asylum interviews is insufficient compared to the six to nine weeks of training given to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services workers.
The report notes that Judge Leon is a Bush 43 appointee, presumably offering that as evidence that this wasn’t some sort of partisan maneuver. In response to that, I’ll simply note that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robers was also appointed by W, and we’ve all seen how that’s been working out lately.
Judge Leon goes on to opine that CPB agents are not likely to conduct screenings in a “nonadversarial manner” as required by law. I assume he means to imply that USCIS employees are less adversarial by default? That’s a rather leaping bit of generalization, isn’t it? Citizenship and Immigration Services employees are also charged with ensuring that only those with valid claims are allowed entry into the country. Otherwise, why bother screening anyone at all? The entire process is “adversarial” when looked at in that light.
Similarly, CBP officers are obliged to allow people through the border who are legally entitled to cross. Both positions require a degree of both convivial and adversarial attitudes depending on the circumstances. The deeper you go into the judge’s decision, the more it seems that the word “poppycock” could be applied to this ruling more appropriately than current White House policies on asylum screening. Or perhaps we should say “malarky?”