Trump gets asylum deal with Guatemala

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

After Trump threatened Guatemala with tariffs earlier this week, that government suddenly decided yesterday to agree to an asylum deal it had previously rejected.

After President Trump invited the media into the oval office, he announced Guatemala was signing a “safe third country” asylum agreement with the United Stated. Effectively blocking Central American asylum seekers from reaching the United States and filing asylum applications. [As an outcome of the agreement asylum seekers who travel through Guatemala can no longer seek U.S. asylum.]

This agreement combined with recent Mexican efforts, also agreed to after a Trump threat of high tariffs, probably means there will be a significant reduction in illegal immigration. For certain the caravans from two years ago will cease.

As always, this does not mean the U.S., Trump, or his supporters do not welcome immigrants. What is demanded is that they follow the law.



  • Phill O

    Great news! Hope it works.

    Anyone who thinks that Trump is an idot with his tweets etc might need to rethink what actually works!

  • Dick Eagleson

    In a related development, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned a lower court decision that had blocked Pres. Trump’s use of $2.5 billion in DoD funds to continue construction of the border wall after the Democratic House refused to appropriate any money for it. Construction should resume this week.

    Given all these recent events – every one of which is due to one or another of Trump’s initiatives – it’s looking as though we may have effective control of our southern border well before the next election.

  • Dick Eagleson: I have not read the decision here, but in general I do not see this as a good thing. It once again concentrates power into the hands of one man. If Congress, either in its wisdom or stupidity, does not allocate funds for something, then the President should not have the right to spend the money. Period. That is how the Constitution was written and conceived.

  • Cotour

    If what was was not working then the legal manipulation driven by actual leadership in the White House that accomplishes the agreed needed funding of these facilities are good and how they came to be are good.

    And it has all been accomplished within the legal framework of the Constitution.

    Lets not fret these details.

    These accomplishments within the proper Constitutional legal structure are 1. A test of the resolve of those in the leadership position, and 2. How actual change is and can be accomplished and it serves to reveal the weakness of the opposition.

  • MDN


    In general I concur with your thinking, however in this case I believe the President is executing lawful authority. Congress granted the executive emergency power authority for national security interests, and that authority has been exercised some 30 times I believe by most every president since the legislation passed, including Trump. So the uniqueness here is the Democratic and judicial obstruction, not Trump’s actions.

    So far he is proceeding within the boundaries of the law on this and the Supreme Court agrees. And if Homeland border security is not national security clearly the responsibility of the President as Commander in Chief, then I don’t know what is.

    The travesty has been previous uses of this power for much less appropriate reasons imho.

  • MDN: Point taken and understood. I just am bothered how much we are allowing power to concentrate away from the citizen. And this concern did not start now. I was bothered by it in those previous 30 times.

  • wayne

    Good stuff.

    We do have a unitary-executive, the President is the Executive branch.

    …that having been said, the horse has been outa-the-barn for considerably longer than the 1980’s era law at issue right now.

  • Col Beausabre

    What should also be remembered is that what can be done by executive order can be undone by executive order. A lot harder to do that with a law

  • Cotour

    Want to be concerned about something? Try this.

    While the Democrats through their weakness and Leftist tendencies are eager to offer us and the rest of the world up to the likes of the Chinese (See: Hong Kong), Trump may have to do many executive order associated things to deal with this situation. This, and things like the Chinese and their Social Rating system (Should chill all to the bone) are things that have been mentioned here on BTB but there has been no concern to follow up on them.

    At some point Trump will not be president, then what?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *