WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is discussing whether the Trump administration can restart an immigration policy that turned away migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border. This practice, known as metering, limited the number of asylum seekers allowed to apply, claiming it was necessary to manage rising numbers at the border.
Critics argue that this policy sparked a humanitarian crisis during Trump’s first term. Many people who were turned away ended up in makeshift camps in Mexico, waiting for another chance to seek refuge in the U.S. Currently, there is no active metering policy, and Trump had previously ordered a halt to the asylum system at the beginning of his second term.
The Trump administration insists that metering is an essential tool, previously utilized by both Democratic and Republican leaders. They believe it should be available if the situation at the border demands it. Some justices appeared to agree with this view, while others raised concerns about whether the policy would create confusion regarding asylum applications for those who entered the country illegally.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh posed a challenging question: “Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United States?” Meanwhile, Vivek Suri, assistant to the solicitor general, argued that individuals turned away could return later, emphasizing the need for capacity management.
In 2019, a report by the Associated Press revealed thousands of immigrants on waitlists during the metering policy. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act, anyone who arrives in the U.S. should be able to file for asylum if they fear persecution in their home countries. The central issue in this case is the interpretation of “arrive in.” The Justice Department claims it only applies to those already inside the U.S., while immigration lawyers maintain it includes those at ports of entry.
Rebecca Cassler, an attorney for the American Immigration Council, stressed that access to asylum is a critical legal right that should remain protected. Chief Justice John Roberts drilled into the details, questioning where an individual must physically be to claim asylum. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that many of these questions remain hypothetical since the policy isn’t currently in effect.
Historically, metering began during Barack Obama’s presidency when a surge of Haitians arrived at the San Diego-Tijuana crossing. The practice expanded during Trump’s term and was halted in 2020 due to pandemic-related restrictions. In 2021, President Biden formally eliminated metering, leading U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant to rule it violated migrants’ rights to claim asylum. This decision was upheld by a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under U.S. law, people seeking refuge can apply for asylum upon arrival in the country, even if their entry was not lawful. They must demonstrate a legitimate fear of persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, or political beliefs. Once asylum is granted, individuals cannot be deported and can pursue legal residency and citizenship.
The current case on metering is one of many immigration issues the court is addressing this term. Other significant cases include Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship and attempts to limit protections for migrants fleeing violence and instability.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, public sentiment remains mixed. Social media discussions reveal a divide, with some emphasizing the need for stricter controls and others advocating for humane treatment of vulnerable migrants. Understanding these ongoing debates is vital as they reflect broader issues of rights, safety, and immigration policy in the U.S.
Source link
Donald Trump, Asylum, Immigration, Mexico, Barack Obama, Courts, Government policy, United States government, Supreme Court of the United States, General news, Latin America, United States, Central America, Brett Kavanaugh, Vivek Suri, Politics, U.S. news, Mexico government, John Roberts, Rebecca Cassler, Joe Biden, U.S. Department of Justice, Cynthia Bashant, Race and ethnicity, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Race and Ethnicity, U.S. News
