🚨 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 through—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 comments—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 changes—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 bar—which is very explicit that it only applies to new applications—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 rule—also coming soon—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 vulnerable—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. 🙄

More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

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

It is simply not correct to point fingers at wind & solar energy as we try to understand the situation in TX. The system (almost) had a plan for weather (almost) like this. 1/x


It relied on very little wind energy - that was the plan. It relied on a lot of natural gas - that was the plan. It relied on all of its nuclear energy - that was the plan. 2/x

There was enough natural gas, coal and nuclear capacity installed to survive this event - it was NOT "forced out" by the wind energy expansion. It was there. 3/x

Wind, natural gas, coal and nuclear plants all failed to deliver on their expectations for long periods of time. The biggest gap was in natural gas! The generators were there, but they were not able to deliver. 4/x

It may be fair to ask why there is so much wind energy in ERCOT if we do NOT expect it to deliver during weather events like this, but that is an entirely different question - and one with a lot of great answers!! 5/x

You May Also Like

#ज्योतिष_विज्ञान #मंत्र_विज्ञान

ज्योतिषाचार्य अक्सर ग्रहों के दुष्प्रभाव के समाधान के लिए मंत्र जप, अनुष्ठान इत्यादि बताते हैं।

व्यक्ति के जन्म के समय ग्रहों की स्थिति ही उसकी कुंडली बन जाती है जैसे कि फ़ोटो खींच लिया हो और एडिट करना सम्भव नही है। इसे ही "लग्न" कुंडली कहते हैं।


लग्न के समय ग्रहों की इस स्थिति से ही जीवन भर आपको किस ग्रह की ऊर्जा कैसे प्रभावित करेगी का निर्धारिण होता है। साथ साथ दशाएँ, गोचर इत्यादि चलते हैं पर लग्न कुंडली का रोल सबसे महत्वपूर्ण है।


पृथ्वी से अरबों खरबों दूर ये ग्रह अपनी ऊर्जा से पृथ्वी/व्यक्ति को प्रभावित करते हैं जैसे हमारे सबसे निकट ग्रह चंद्रमा जोकि जल का कारक है पृथ्वी और शरीर के जलतत्व पर पूर्ण प्रभाव रखता है।
पूर्णिमा में उछाल मारता समुद्र का जल इसकी ऊर्जा के प्रभाव को दिखाता है।


अमावस्या में ऊर्जा का स्तर कम होने पर वही समुद्र शांत होकर पीछे चला जाता है। जिसे ज्वार-भाटा कहते हैं। इसी तरह अन्य ग्रहों की ऊर्जा के प्रभाव होते हैं जिन्हें यहां समझाना संभव नहीं।
चंद्रमा की ये ऊर्जा शरीर को (अगर खराब है) water retention, बैचेनी, नींद न आना आदि लक्षण दिखाती है


मंत्र क्या हैं-
मंत्र इन ऊर्जाओं के सटीक प्रयोग करने के पासवर्ड हैं। जिनके जप से संबंधित ग्रह की ऊर्जा को जातक की ऊर्जा से कनेक्ट करके उन ग्रहों के दुष्प्रभाव को कम किया और शुभ प्रभाव को बढ़ाया जाता है।
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.