Advocates say the policy created a humanitarian crisis during Trump’s first term.
grappled Tuesday with whether the Trump administration should be able to revive an immigration policy that has been used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.a lower-court ruling against the practice known as metering.
Immigration authorities limited the number of people who could apply for asylum, saying it was necessary to handle an increase at the border. Advocates say the policy created a humanitarian crisis during President Donald Trump’s first term as people who were turned away settled in makeshift camps in Mexico as they waited for a chance to seek asylum. The policy isn’t in place now, and Trump ordered a wider suspension of the asylum system at the start of his second term. The administration, though, argues that metering remains a “critical tool” used under administrations from both parties, and should be available if necessary in the future. While some justices seemed open to that argument, others raised questions about whether the policy would allow people who entered the country illegally to apply for asylum while new arrivals seeking legal entry at the border could be blocked. “Why would Congress privilege someone who illegally enters the United States?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked. An attorney for the Trump administration maintained that people turned away one day could potentially come back later. “It’s saying our port is at capacity today, try again some other day,” said Vivek Suri, assistant to the solicitor general. Under American law, migrants who arrive in the U.S. must be able to apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home countries. The legal dispute at the heart of the metering case centers around the meaning of the words “arrive in.” The Justice Department argues it means anyone who is in the United States already, so it doesn’t apply to people authorities stop on the Mexico side of the border. But immigration attorneys say the law has long meant anyone who comes to a port of entry must be able to apply, and it should stay that way. Chief Justice John Roberts peppered an attorney for the migrants with questions on exactly where someone must be to claim asylum. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that those questions are hard to answer when the policy isn’t being used. “It just seems to me that we have a lot of hypotheticals regarding how this policy may have worked in the past, how it’s possibly going to work in the future, but we don’t have a policy in effect right now that we can actually rule on,” she said.Melania Trump hosts world counterparts and tech reps to discuss children, education and technologyAbortion pills are gaining ground as a method for ending pregnancies, and opponents are responding Metering was first used during President Barack Obama’s administration when large numbers of Haitians appeared at the main crossing to San Diego from Tijuana, Mexico. It was expanded to all border crossings from Mexico during Trump’s first term in the White House. The practice ended in 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic led the government to greater restrictions on asylum-seekers. President Joe Biden formally rescinded the use of metering in 2021. Also that year, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant, an Obama nominee, ruled that metering violated the migrants’ constitutional rights and a federal law requiring officials to screen anyone who arrives at the border seeking asylum. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed her ruling, but nearly half of the judges on the full San Francisco-based appeals court voted to rehear the case, a strong signal that may have caught the justices’ attention. People seeking refuge in the U.S. are able to apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally. To qualify, they have to show a fear of persecution in their own country because of specific reasons, such as their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Once people are granted asylum, they can’t be deported. They can work legally, bring immediate family into the country, apply for legal residency and eventually seek U.S. citizenship.4 women hospitalized after stabbing at DTLA restaurantReg Green: Amid tragedy, seeing hope for the futureCalifornia hospitals laying off thousands as funding cuts trickle downCallback
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Supreme Court hears arguments Monday over late-arriving ballots, a Trump targetThe Supreme Court is taking up a case from Mississippi over whether states can count late-arriving mail ballots, a target of President Donald Trump.
Read more »
Supreme Court hears arguments Monday over late-arriving ballots, a Trump targetThe Supreme Court is taking up a case from Mississippi over whether states can count late-arriving mail ballots, a target of President Donald Trump.
Read more »
Supreme Court reverses lower court on qualified immunity for Vermont police sergeant who arrested protesterFox News Channel offers its audiences in-depth news reporting, along with opinion and analysis encompassing the principles of free people, free markets and diversity of thought, as an alternative to the left-of-center offerings of the news marketplace.
Read more »
Supreme Court hears arguments over late-arriving mail-in ballots, a Trump targetThe Supreme Court is taking up a case from Mississippi over whether states can count late-arriving mail ballots, a target of President Donald Trump.
Read more »
Supreme Court hears arguments over late-arriving ballots, a Trump targetThe outcome of the case being argued Monday could affect voters in 14 states.
Read more »
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Journalist's Wrongful Arrest Case, Citing Appeals Court RulingThe Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case of journalist Priscilla Villarreal, known as La Gordiloca, who claimed wrongful arrest related to obtaining nonpublic information from police. The court upheld a lower court's decision granting officials immunity, despite a dissenting opinion from Justice Sotomayor and concerns about First Amendment violations. The court also declined to hear a similar case involving a former local official, raising concerns about the protection of free speech and press freedom.
Read more »