The Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States provides, in part, that \u201caliens who seek to lawfully enter the United States must do so at ports of entry…. [A]liens who enter the United States unlawfully through the southern border in contravention of this proclamation will be ineligible to be granted asylum ….\u201d The president elaborated on this new rule by writing that this port-of-entry bar would allow the asylum system to operate in a more \u201corderly and con-trolled manner\u201d and gave reassurances that additional resources would be committed to support ports of entry as they deal with the anticipated surge of arrivals. Boldly ignoring the Administrative Procedure Act\u2019s (\u201cAPA\u201d) typical thirty-day waiting period the Attorney General (\u201cAG\u201d) proposed and immediately put into effect a new rule allowing asylum to be limited via presidential proclamation. The port-of-entry bar was shocking for the speed with which the administration planned to implement it, and the rule\u2019s novelty. Never before had an alien\u2019s choice of border-crossing site affected their eligibility for asylum.<\/p>\n
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision to Strike Down the port of Entry Bar: East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump<\/a><\/p>\nThe Ninth Circuit\u2019s Decision to Strike Down the port of Entry Bar<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States provides, in part, that \u201caliens who seek to lawfully enter the United States must do so […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":350,"featured_media":0,"parent":1268,"menu_order":1,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-422","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/422","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/350"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=422"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/422\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1279,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/422\/revisions\/1279"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/immigration-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}