Supreme Court allows Trump to turn away asylum seekers at US-Mexico border | US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has given the Trump administration the green light to turn away asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border, in a decision that fundamentally reshapes the U.S. asylum system.

The Trump administration has for years sought to prevent migrants from setting foot on U.S. soil, where federal law guarantees them the right to seek asylum and protection from persecution. The ruling will allow this practice to resume, concluding a battle that lasted three administrations.

The vote was 6-3, with Justices Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett concurring. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor all dissented, with the latter writing a scathing 35-page dissent – ​​notably almost twice as long as Alito’s majority opinion.

According to Alito, he wrote: “In ordinary language, no one would say that a person ‘arrives’ at a place…before entering that place.”

Sotomayor strongly rejected his dissent, explaining the dire consequences of the decision, noting that the government could now circumvent a wide range of laws protecting asylum seekers by simply blocking their entry at the border.

“They can do so even if the asylum seeker is on the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens seeking to enter the country. Even if the port of entry has sufficient capacity to inspect that person, including an available asylum officer trained to process asylum applications. Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if turned away,” she wrote.

She continued: “The Court’s illogical interpretation is driven almost entirely by a fixation on a single word: ‘in.’ However, the words must be read in context and with attention to how they fit into the law as a whole. The majority ignore the statutory context and history, not to mention the long-standing position of the executive branch, all of which show that any non-citizen arriving at our door seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, whether or not their foot has crossed the threshold. Because the Court today blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to close the door to all those fleeing persecution, despite the detailed system of inspection and asylum that Congress enacted and mandated, I respectfully disagree.

The case was initially filed in 2017, during the first Trump administration, by Al Otro Lado, a legal and humanitarian services provider based in California and Mexico, and a group of asylum seekers subject to the pushback policy.

At the time, the administration significantly expanded the practice of turning away migrants at the border, leaving them stranded in unsafe encampments or temporary housing. Joe Biden reversed this policy in 2021, but after Donald Trump was re-elected as president, his administration asked Supreme Court justices to review lower court rulings banning the practice.

U.S. immigration law allows migrants arriving in the United States to seek asylum; the Supreme Court case hinged on what exactly “happening” means. When the court considered the case in March, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett appeared to agree with the Trump administration’s argument that “arriving” in the United States means putting food entirely on American soil. If a migrant is turned away before being able to cross the border, they are not entitled to asylum, the administration said.

The Supreme Court’s decision came after lower courts repeatedly struck down the practice of turning away asylum seekers at the border. Advocates and lawyers representing migrants have argued that the practice is illegal and contrary to the country’s long history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution.

But the Trump administration has long viewed asylum as an obstacle to its goal of closing the southern border. Last year, administration officials launched a global campaign to roll back asylum protections, seeking to dismantle the post-World War II framework supporting refugees and asylum seekers. At a United Nations meeting in September, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called the asylum system “a huge gap in our immigration laws.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under Trump’s leadership, has not only sought to turn away people arriving at the border, but also urged immigration courts to summarily reject asylum claims. Increasingly, DHS is sending migrants fleeing persecution in their home countries to third countries where they have never been.

ignore newsletter promotionFree newsletter | About 2 to 3 times a day

Subscribe to Breaking News US

Receive the most important news as it breaks

after newsletter promotion

A trend toward limiting access to asylum at the southern border, however, began during the Obama administration, when officials sought to “measure” the flow of migrants entering the United States. Asylum applications at the border have increased alongside diminishing opportunities for other types of immigration and long delays in obtaining visas and green cards. In 2016, tens of thousands of people from Haiti began arriving at the southern border in search of safety; many had first sought to settle in Brazil after the catastrophic 2010 earthquake, but migrated north after Brazil also experienced difficult economic times.

That’s when immigration agents began, in some cases, stationing themselves on international bridges, seeking to prevent migrants from reaching ports of entry into the United States. Many of those turned back found themselves stuck in camps without adequate food or access to medical care.

The Trump administration formalized the practice of turning away migrants at the border by stationing agents at the international border to prevent asylum seekers from setting foot on U.S. soil.

Although much of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in this case have focused on the question of what it means to “arrive” in the United States and whether the administration is entitled to deny asylum by preventing arrival, the Court’s liberal justices also grappled with what it would essentially mean to end the proactive granting of asylum at the U.S. border.

Justice Sotomayor compared the practice of turning away asylum seekers to the tragedy of the St. Louis, a passenger ship carrying Jewish refugees that was turned away by the United States just before World War II. About half of the passengers sent back to Western European countries were trapped and killed during the German invasion.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos