Pile On: Court Blocks Trump Administration's New Asylum Rules

Joe Biden's forecast for dark days ahead is turning out to be true, perhaps not in the sense that Biden predicted. The far-left cannot wait just a few short days until Biden's inauguration. On Friday, Democrats plotted an eleventh-hour impeachment, the fascists at Twitter banned the president, and a federal judge blocked the president's most sweeping set of Asylum restrictions. Dark days for the Republic indeed.

A U.S. District Judge in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, sided with advocacy groups who argued that acting Homeland Security secretary, Chad Wolf, lacked the statutory authority to impose asylum restrictions, the Associated Press reported.

(Via the AP)

The new rules had been set to take effect Monday. The ruling has limited immediate impact because the government has largely suspended asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border during the coronavirus pandemic, citing public health concerns.

Still, letting the rules take effect would have been felt by some who can still claim asylum and make it significantly more difficult for all asylum-seekers once pandemic-related measures are lifted.

...

It was not immediately clear if the Trump administration would make an emergency appeal.

The rules sought to redefine how people qualify for asylum and similar forms of humanitarian protection if they face persecution at home. The restrictions would have broadened the grounds for a judge to deem asylum applications “frivolous” and prohibit applicants from ever winning protections in the U.S.

...

The rules would narrow the types of persecution and severity of threats for which asylum is granted. Applicants seeking protections on the basis of gender or those who claim they were targeted by gangs, “rogue” government officials or “non-state organizations” would likely not be eligible for asylum.

Immigration judges would be directed to be more selective about granting asylum claims and allow them to deny most applications without a court hearing.

In March, the Trump administration instituted emergency coronavirus measures that effectively expelled around nine out of every 10 border arrivals. The administration also implemented its Remain in Mexico measure requiring asylum seekers to do just that while their asylum claims are adjudicated.

Joe Biden has vowed to undo the Trump-era immigration reforms, but recently announced he would hold off on doing so for "probably the next six months" to prevent a flood of migrants at the border, according to the AP. In Biden's mind, six months from now will be the perfect time for a flood of immigrants. Border arrivals are already skyrocketing in anticipation of Biden's leniency.

In December, a federal judge reinstated the Obama-era DACA amnesty program after similarly ruling that acting Secretary Chad Wolf lacked the statutory authority to terminate the program. The logic goes that Wolf, like Kevin McAllenan before him, unlawfully filled the vacancy left by the departure of Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in 2019.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2021/01/08/pile-on-court-blocks-trump-administrations-asylum-rules-n2582851

Mindless bureaucracy takes a hit

As the fear of coronavirus swept the world, panic buying went into full swing. Suddenly, toilet paper and hand sanitizer became hot commodities that were difficult to find. The high demand for these products, and limited workforce availability because of the virus, resulted in severe shortages as companies were unable to meet the increased demand.

Fortunately, the United States is home to thousands of breweries and distilleries that had the ability to turn alcohol originally meant for consumption into a usable denatured hand sanitizer. When demand for hand sanitizer skyrocketed, several distilleries stepped up to the plate and implemented novel processes to mass produce the much-needed sanitizer. Virtually overnight, these companies produced, packaged, and delivered thousands of bottles of hand sanitizer to the American people.

For their patriotic efforts, this is how these companies were thanked: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new regulations and fees for organizations operating as “monograph drug facilities” – producing over-the-counter drugs. This includes the hundreds of distilleries that stepped up, putting profits aside to mass produce hand sanitizer. For the fiscal year of 2021, the FDA fees for hand sanitizer producing facilities is $14,060.

Keep in mind that many of these companies disregarded their own bottom lines and instead produced sanitizer at cost or donated it. Without these companies producing the amounts of hand sanitizer they did in an efficient manner, our nation could have been far worse off. Even if the distilleries donated the product they produced, these companies would still be on the hook for the $14,000.

Let’s not forget that the government shutdowns resulted in thousands of small businesses closing their doors, while big box stores remained open. According to one estimate, 60 percent of businesses that shut down due to the pandemic are now permanently closed. Imagine being a business owner, trying to keep your business afloat, and instead choosing to forgo profit for the greater good by producing sanitizer the country needs. These company leaders deserve medals, not government fees.

Fortunately, FDA realized their blunder after public opposition to the outrageous fees. FDA did reverse the decision and revoked the fees on distilleries that voluntarily served communities during the pandemic.

According to Health and Human Services Chief of Staff Brian Harrison, "Small businesses who stepped up to fight COVID-19 should be applauded by their government, not taxed for doing so. I'm pleased to announce we have directed FDA to cease enforcement of these arbitrary, surprise user fees. Happy New Year, distilleries, and cheers to you for helping keep us safe!"

Clearly, FDA did the right thing by revoking the fees on distilleries that helped during the pandemic. However, FDA’s penchant for overregulating is a problem that exceeds this situation. Had FDA implemented the ill-advised fees on the distilleries, it is extremely unlikely that private businesses would be as willing to help in future emergencies.

In the future, FDA ought to think about the long-term consequences of petty decisions to raise revenue by penalizing businesses that are simply trying to do the right thing.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/fda-backtracks-on-hand-sanitizer-fees

The Supreme Court Will Hear Donor Privacy Case

Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) is a nonprofit organization based in Michigan that defends and promotes religious freedom, moral and family values, and the sanctity of human life—issues that can be quite contentious in our current social climate

In fact, TMLC’s supporters, clients, and employees have faced intimidation, death threats, hate mail, boycotts, and even an assassination attempt from ideological opponents.

Understandably, TMLC wants to make sure their donors’ private information stays protected and secure.

But a policy in California threatens this privacy by requiring nonprofits to hand over the names and private information of nonprofit donors to its Attorney General’s Office—an office with an unfortunate history of leaking confidential information. TMLC told California “no,” and filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge its unconstitutional policy. And in August 2019, TMLC asked the United States Supreme Court to take up its case.

Today, the Supreme Court has announced that it will hear TMLC’s case.

This is good news for anyone who donates to a nonprofit organization.

TMLC has been fighting to protect its donors’ private information since March 2012, when the Attorney General’s Office suddenly began to harass TMLC and demand the names and addresses of its major supporters. TMLC had fundraised in California for years without incident and never disclosed its donors before. But the California Attorney General’s Office changed its policy to force any nonprofit that fundraises in the state to hand over the names and addresses of its top donors.

This policy wouldn’t just affect California residents. It would affect anyone across the country who gives to any nonprofit that asks for donations in California, the nation’s most populous state.

Federal authorities like the IRS may have a decent record of keeping donors’ information secure. But California’s Attorney General’s Office isn’t one of them. In 2009, employees mislabeled nearly 1,800 confidential Schedule B tax documents as “public.” In a separate incident, all of the Registry of Charitable Trusts’ confidential documents were available on the internet and anyone could access them simply by altering a single digit at the end of the document’s URL.

The likelihood of California Attorney General’s Office making donors’ confidential information publicly available is great, and there are no punishments for even willful and malicious leaks. In today’s social climate, that could put supporters and their families at risk.

Every American should be free to support causes they believe in without fear of harassment or intimidation. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of TMLC and put an end to California’s blanket demand for nonprofit supporters’ private information.

https://www.adflegal.org/blog/supreme-court-will-hear-important-donor-privacy-case

The Sovietization Of California

I am writing this column upon returning home to California after five days in Florida. For the first time since my first trip to Los Angeles in 1974 and moving there two years later, I dreaded going to California.

That first trip, as a 25-year-old New Yorker, I experienced the palpable excitement looking at the American Airlines flight board at JFK airport and seeing “Los Angeles.” For most Americans, the very name “California” elicited excitement, wonder, even envy of Californians, and most of all … freedom. While America always represented freedom, within America, California exemplified freedom most of all.

Yet, here I am, sitting in a state where corruption reigns (one of the leading Democrats of the last half-century told me years ago that politicians in California are window dressing; the real power in California is wielded by unions) and where, for nine months, normal life has been shut down, schools have been closed and small businesses have been destroyed in unprecedented numbers.

During these last five days in Florida, a state governed by the pro-freedom party, I went anywhere I wanted. First and foremost, I could eat both inside and outside restaurants. At one of them, when I stood up to take photos of people dining, a patron who recognized me walked over and said, “I assume you’re just taking pictures of people eating in a restaurant.” That’s exactly what I was doing. I even took my two grandchildren to a bowling alley, which was filled with people enjoying themselves playing myriad arcade games as well as bowling.

None of that is allowed almost anywhere in California. It is becoming a police state, rooted in deception and irrationality.

Restaurants have been shut down (except for takeout orders), even for outdoor dining, for no scientific reason. After ordering Los Angeles county restaurants closed, the health authorities of Los Angeles county acknowledged in court that they had no evidence that outdoor dining was dangerous; they ordered restaurants closed, even to outdoor dining, solely in order to keep people home.

The Left’s claim to “follow the science” is a lie. The Left does not follow science; it follows scientists it agrees with and dismisses all other scientists as “anti-science.”

Science does not say that eating inside a restaurant at least six feet from other diners, let alone outside a restaurant, is potentially fatal, but eating inside an airplane inches from strangers is safe.

Science does not say mass protests during a pandemic (when people are constantly told to social distance) are a health benefit, but left-wing scientists say they are — when directed against racism. In June, Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, tweeted: “In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus.” She cited the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Frieden: “The threat to Covid control from protesting outside is tiny compared to the threat to Covid control created when governments act in ways that lose community trust. People can protest peacefully AND work together to stop Covid. Violence harms public health.”

Even The New York Times, in July, acknowledged the double standard: “Public health experts decried the anti-lockdown protests as dangerous gatherings in a pandemic. Health experts seem less comfortable doing so now that the marches are against racism.”

Science does not say, “Men give birth” or, “Men menstruate.” But the Left routinely argues that “science says” such things and that “science says” there are more than two sexes, many more.

The last time I felt I was leaving a free society and entering an unfree one was when I visited the communist countries of Eastern Europe. As a graduate student majoring in communism, during the Cold War, I would travel through the countries known as Soviet satellites: Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In the middle of my trips, I would stop in Austria to breathe free air.

Never did I imagine I would ever experience anything analogous in America, the Land of the Free, the land of the Statue of Liberty and of the Liberty Bell. But I did yesterday, when leaving Florida and returning to California.

There is no question that America is becoming, if it hasn’t already become, two countries: one that values liberty, from small businesses being allowed to operate to people being allowed to say what they believe, and one that has contempt for liberty, from eating in restaurants to free speech.

I am asked almost daily by friends around the country and by callers to my national radio show whether I intend to stay in California. Were it not for all the close friends who live here and the synagogue I and a few friends founded, the answer would be no. But at a given point, I am sure that I will leave this Soviet satellite for a free state. The bigger and far more important question is: How long will the Soviet states of America and the free states of America remain the United States of America?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/prager-the-sovietization-of-california

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*****************************************