๐Ÿšจ The June "Death to Asylum" regulation has been finalized. It is set to go into effect on Monday, January 11, just nine days before inauguration.

https://t.co/tQGwoRrjjW

Under this new rule, one of Trump's last parting body blows to the United States' system of humanitarian protection, none but the lucky few will be able to win asylum.

The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.
Before I get into just how horrific this new anti-asylum regulation is, a picture of Petra I took this morning to soften the blow of what is a terrible thing to read throughโ€”even though the Biden administration will be working to end it ASAP and court challenges are certain.
Back to the new regulation, which I wrote about in June when it was first proposed.

Today, the Trump administration says that they have "generally adopt[ed] the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] with few substantive changes." Meaning it's just as bad. https://t.co/EhWm9MwzFe
The Trump administration's anti-refugee policies show right at the start.

To them, refugee protections are first about "protecting [our] own resources and citizens" and only secondarily about protecting people from persecution.

That's what led us to turn away Jews in the 1930s.
Despite over 80,000 comments in response to this rule, the overwhelming majority of which were in opposition to the rule, the Trump administration only made FIVE substantive changes.

It's clear that they never intended to respond to commentsโ€”and that'll doom them in court.
Before I go through those five substantive changes, I encourage people to check out my thread from June analyzing the proposed regulation.

It goes over in excruciating detail just some of the terrible changesโ€”almost all of which have now been adopted. https://t.co/Wg31fcb0uZ
Okay, the 5 changes.

First, DHS/DOJ have partially walked back their original proposal to utterly ban new Particular Social Groups in motions to reopen if not presented early on, even when it was ineffective of counsel.

Old language: New language:
Second, DHS/DOJ have also partially walked back a proposal to ban claims of persecution on the basis of death threats without an attempt (i.e. even if someone said "I'm going to kill you tomorrow" that wouldn't have been enough).

Old: New:
Third, DHS/DOJ have decided to graciously agree that illegal entry by CHILDREN shouldn't be a "significant adverse discretionary factor" in asylum... but kept in place penalties against CHILDREN for:

- not applying for asylum in a third country; or
- using fraudulent documents
Fourth, DHS/DOJ have clarified some incredibly confusing language about when a brand new (and absolutely ridiculous) definition of a "frivolous" asylum application goes into place.
And the fifth and last "substantive change"... is to make the rule even worse by eliminating a requirement that people whose applications are at risk of being deemed frivolous be given a chance to respond to concerns and argue why their case isn't frivolous.

Truly despicable.
There were over 80,000 comments in opposition to this rule. @immcouncil and tons of other orgs submitted extensive comments identifying hundreds of problems with the rules... and DHS/EOIR made just 5 substantive changes (one making things worse) and 13 non-substantive changes.
In the response to the comments, DHS/EOIR puts into footnotes that the regulation will not apply to pending applications, but at NO point in the actual text of the regulation (the part judges apply) is that written.

There will absolutely be extensive confusion over this point.
On the point of whether these rules apply to pending cases, compare the frivolousness barโ€”which is very explicit that it only applies to new applicationsโ€”to the general language around the new definitions of asylum law.

Why should we trust DHS/EOIR's footnotes on pending cases?
DHS/EOIR are keeping in place a provision that would place every person who passes a credible fear interview at the border into "asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings."

Under a separate ruleโ€”also coming soonโ€”they'd get just 15 days to file for asylum!

https://t.co/Ev7x0sxEUB
The entire regulation is a disaster procedurally and legally. It is blatantly unlawful in multiple locations because it flies in the face of decades of precedent on asylum.

Just on those grounds alone, a court is likely to strike down the rule as unlawful. But there's more!
The rule is also a procedural disaster. DHS/EOIR offers conclusory and insufficient responses to almost all concerns raised in the comments, despite being required to do more.

As a result, the rule will likely be blocked on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. But there's more!
The DHS part of the rule is also vulnerable because as commenters raised (and multiple federal courts have already with them), Chad Wolf is not lawfully serving as DHS Secretary.

Since Wolf doesn't have the authority to promulgate this rule, the DHS rule is totally void.
So, to sum up: this is a terrifyingly awful attack on asylum that would threaten the very foundations of the United States' promises to protect the vulnerableโ€”but like so many Trump policies, it was done so sloppily and unlawfully that it probably won't survive in court.
One of the very first things the Biden administration should do on taking office is to declared they will not defend the rule in court, and at the same time begin the process of formally eliminating the rule and replacing it with something much better that preserves asylum.
To give an example of what I mean by "conclusory and insufficient responses" to comments, check out this one, which can only be boiled down to "nuh-uh."
Another example of total failure to engage with comments?

DHS/EOIR says people are wrong that the rules create blanket bans on certain kinds of claims because they don't "categorically rule out types of claims."

In other words, it's not a ban if 1 in 1,000 can still win. ๐Ÿ™„

More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Sitting down to work for the first day of the Biden presidency is a surreal feeling.

So much happened yesterday. I'm going to collect my threads here on yesterday's big immigration news.

First, we got key details of Biden's big immigration


Once Biden had officially taken office, we got the first major action. As part of a standard transition process, the Biden White House froze all regulations which Trump had been trying to finalize at the last hour. I did a thread on what we


Last night we started getting more changes. One of the first was an order telling CBP to stop putting people into the so-called "Migrant Protection Protocols," a cruel program that's left thousands in a dangerous limbo. But there's still more to do!


After that, we began getting the text of immigration executive orders. The first one put onto the White House's website was the order ending the Muslim Ban/Africa Ban and ordering the State Department to come up with a plan for reconsidering


The next immigration executive order put on the White House's website revoked a Trump executive order from January 26, 2017 which made all undocumented immigrants a priority for deportation and directed a DHS-wide review of immigration
We finally have the U.S. Citizenship Act Bill Text! I'm going to go through some portions of the bill right now and highlight some of the major changes and improvements that it would make to our immigration system.

Thread:


First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.

Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."

Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."


Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.

Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.


So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:

- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)


After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.

However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.

More from Society

@danielashby @AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd I'll bite. Let's try to keep it factual. There's a reasonable basis to some aspects of this question, that it might be possible to agree on. Then there are other, more variable, elements which depend on external factors such as transport and energy policy. /1

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd First up, we know reasonably well how much energy it takes to propel a high-speed train along the HS2 route. We can translate that into effective CO2 generated by making some assumptions about how green the electricity grid is. /2

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Secondly, we have a reasonable grasp of how much CO2 is going to be generated by building HS2 - there are standard methods of working this out, based on the amount of steel, concrete, earthmoving, machine-fuelling etc required. /3

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd Thirdly, we can estimate how much CO2 is generated by cutting down trees, and how much is captured by planting new trees. We can also estimate how much CO2 is needed to keep the railway running and generated by maintaining the track /4

@AdamWJT @Greens4HS2 @TheGreenParty @GarethDennis @XRebellionUK @Hs2RebelRebel @HS2ltd We know how much CO2 is saved by moving goods by freight train on the lines freed up by moving the express trains on to HS2, rather than by truck. /5

You May Also Like

๐™Ž๐™๐™–๐™ง๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™ข๐™ฎ ๐™ฌ๐™ž๐™จ๐™™๐™ค๐™ข ๐‘พ๐’๐’'๐’• ๐’ƒ๐’† ๐’”๐’–๐’“๐’‘๐’“๐’Š๐’”๐’†๐’… ๐’Š๐’‡ ๐’•๐’๐’Ž๐’๐’“๐’“๐’๐’˜ ๐’– ๐’“๐’†๐’‚๐’… ๐’•๐’‰๐’† ๐’”๐’‚๐’Ž๐’† ๐’”๐’•๐’–๐’‡๐’‡ ๐’Š๐’ 50๐’Œ ๐’˜๐’๐’“๐’Œ๐’”๐’‰๐’๐’‘ ๐’๐’“ ๐’”๐’๐’Ž๐’†๐’๐’๐’† ๐’Ž๐’‚๐’๐’‚๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’๐’ˆ ๐’š๐’๐’–๐’“ ๐’Ž๐’๐’๐’†๐’š ๐’˜๐’Š๐’•๐’‰ ๐’”๐’‚๐’Ž๐’† ๐’๐’๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’„
Simple and effective way 2 make Money


Idea 1:- Use pivot level like 14800 in case of nifty and sell 14800straddle monthly expiry (365+335) exit if nifty closes on daily basis below S1 or above R1

After closing below S1 if it closes above S1 next day or any day enter the same position again vice versa for R1

Idea2:- Use R1 and S1 corresponding strikes multiple
Incase of R1 15337 take 15300ce
N in case of S1 14221 use 14200pe
Sell both and hold till expiry or exit if nifty closes below S1 or above R1 around closing
If the same bounces above S1 and falls below R1 re-enfer same strikes

Use same criteria for nifty, usdinr and banknifty

(This is must)Use this margin rule for 1lot banknifty pair keep 4Lax margin
For nifty one lot keep 3Lax
For usdinr 100lots keep 4Lax

I bet you if you do this on consistent basis your ROI will be more than 70% on yearly basis.

Couldn't explain easier than this

Criticisms are most welcomed.