Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
LawSupreme Court clears way for Trump administration to revive restrictive immigration policy - The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court cleared the way Thursday for the Trump administration to potentially revive an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The justices, in a 6-3 decision, overturned a lower court order blocking the practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day, first under the Obama administration and then expanded during President Donald Trump’s first term.
Advocates said the tactic created a humanitarian crisis as thousands of people settled in unsafe makeshift shelters to await their turn. The Trump administration said it was necessary to deal with an increase of asylum seekers at the border.
The policy isn’t in place now, though authorities have imposed other restrictions on asylum seekers.
The administration argued that metering is a critical tool that’s been used by presidents of both parties and should stay available. Federal attorneys say people turned away at the border could come back later, though lines were thousands of people long when the policy was in place before.
The case is one of several immigration suits is considering this term, including Trump’s push to end restrict birthright citizenship and his administration’s effort to strip legal temporary protections for migrants fleeing instability and armed conflict.
Under federal law, migrants who arrive in the U.S. must be able to apply for asylum and be screened for fear of persecution in their home countries.
The Justice Department argued that people stopped by authorities haven’t arrived in the country, so immigration agents don’t have to let them apply.
The court’s conservative majority agreed. “A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
In an unusual exchange, Alito voiced a response after she finished speaking. He expressed surprise that she had read her dissent out loud and defended his opinion by pointing out that the policy had been used during two presidential administrations. “I won’t add anything more to that,” Alito said.
Metering was first used under President Barack Obama 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.
It ended in 2020 when the government introduced greater restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, and President Joe Biden formally rescinded it in 2021.
The same year, a California-based federal judge found that metering violated the asylum seekers rights and the law requiring screening. A divided appeals court panel affirmed the ruling but nearly half of judges on the full San Francisco-based court voted to rehear it, a strong signal that might have caught the attention of the Supreme Court.
U.S. law allows people seeking refuge to apply for asylum once they are on American soil, regardless of whether they came legally. To qualify for asylum, they must show a fear of persecution in their homeland for specific reasons, like race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
People who are eventually granted asylum can’t be deported. They can legally work, bring in immediate family, apply for legal residency and seek citizenship.
___
Associated Press writer Fatima Hussein contributed to this report.
Trump can begin deportations of Syrian, Haitian TPS holders, Supreme Court says
The Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to begin mass deportations of people who have been living and working legally in the United States for years, some even decades. By a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines, the court's conservative majority ruled that the President has virtually unrestrained power to end the Temporary Protected Status program, known as TPS.
Congress enacted the TPS law in 1990 to allow fully vetted and eligible migrants to live and work legally in the U.S. if they cannot return safely to their home countries because of natural disasters, armed conflicts, and other extraordinary conditions. The Department of Homeland Security designates which foreign countries qualify for TPS.
Since the law's enactment, every President, Republican and Democrat, has embraced it, except Trump. He, in contrast, is trying to end the temporary protected status of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. And on Thursday , the high court gave him the tools to do it.
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito that under the TPS law, the president has unreviewable authority to end the program, without intervention from the courts.
There are more than a dozen countries that have been designated with TPS, including the two in this case— Haiti, with 330,000 displaced persons living legally in the U.S., and Syria with roughly 3,800. The U.S. State Department currently warns Americans in the strongest terms not to go to Haiti or because of the dangers of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care. The court's decision means that the President can end the protected status of Haitians and Syrians without the possibility of judicial review. Migrants living legally in the U.S. from those countries will likely revert to illegal status, meaning they will lose their jobs and face deportation, with many of them forced to leave their American-born children behind.
The Trump administration has attempted to strip TPS from 13 of the 17 countries that had it before his second term began. As for the remaining four countries that still have TPS—El Salvador, Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine, they may well lose their TPS when they come up for renewal this fall.
Dissenting from today's decision were the court's three liberals.
Reaction to the decision was fast and furious among immigrant rights groups. "Revoking TPS protection is not just cruel; it is economic self-sabotage that will rip billions out of the U.S. economy and destabilize communities nationwide," said Todd SchulteFWD.us, a bipartisan group that advocates for immigration reform, said in a statement.
According to the group, 200,000 Haitian TPS holders are in the U.S. workforce, including 15,000 agricultural workers, 13,000 nursing assistants, and 8,000 caregivers. What's more, the group says, TPS holders generate an estimated $5.9 billion for the U.S. economy each year and annually pay a total of $1.5 billion in federal and state taxes.
"Revoking TPS protection is not just cruel; it is economic self-sabotage that will rip billions out of the U.S. economy and destabilize communities nationwide,"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.
Congress enacted the TPS law in 1990 to allow fully vetted and eligible migrants to live and work legally in the U.S. if they cannot return safely to their home countries because of natural disasters, armed conflicts, and other extraordinary conditions. The Department of Homeland Security designates which foreign countries qualify for TPS.
Since the law's enactment, every President, Republican and Democrat, has embraced it, except Trump.
But attorneys for people seeking asylum say the law has long meant anyone arriving at a port of entry should be screened, and blocking arrivals disregards the nation’s ideals.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the bench, saying that the majority’s opinion “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”
Jackson in no way deserves to be a Justice, so, its karmicly delightful to watch her bitch and moan as everything she hates passes across her lap on its way to being declared Constitutional and she can't do a thing about it.
Despite being a poc girl boss on the right side of history? Her dissent is just so much wasted paper.
All that rotten appointment got her was a front row seat for endless liberal lawfare L's.
Its always interesting to see how a tiny group of people in the 1900s was able to seize and subvert the entire meaning of the statue of liberty to their own purposes. The true meaning of the statue is completely forgotten.
The other thing always ignored is that the poem played no part in the dedication of the statue and was only placed on the statue almost 20 years after the statue was dedicated. It wasn't added until 1903.
A statue dedicated to liberty, freedom and representative government was transformed into "the statue of free migration".
It was part of the package of revenge legislation for not allowing unlimited migration from nazi germany in the 1930s. One of the base assumptions was that Asylum would only be for small numbers of people actually in clearly proven danger of being murdered for political reasons. That judges would only ever grant asylum in cases where it was completely obvious that the person was in danger. And not simply use it to let in unlimited economic migrants. Or that "My husband was mean to me in Brazil" would someday be considered as grounds for political asylum.
an immigration policy once used to turn back migrants seeking asylum
practice that limited the number of people who could apply for asylum each day
created a humanitarian crisis
For anyone who wants an honest description:
- When Mexico started letting waves of Central American illegals through to the American border, Border Patrol said we can only process a certain number of "asylum" claims per day
- ((Immigration lawyers)) filed lawsuits on behalf of Central Americans in Mexico (ie non-Americans, who weren't in America) demanding their "right" to enter illegally and claim asylum, at which point they couldn't be removed until their claims were proved fraudulent
- The Biden Admin said "let's treat anyone anywhere near the border like they've already entered and let them claim asylum from abroad"
- Judges under Trump declared "entered the country" to mean "haven't entered but want to do so illegally"
And the SC just said no, you can only claim asylum from within the US (unfortunately they didn't also rule that if you enter illegally you lose the right to claim asylum, refugee status, etc).
Its always interesting to see how a tiny group of people in the 1900s was able to seize and subvert the entire meaning of the statue of liberty to their own purposes. The true meaning of the statue is completely forgotten.
The other thing always ignored is that the poem played no part in the dedication of the statue and was only placed on the statue almost 20 years after the statue was dedicated. It wasn't added until 1903.
A statue dedicated to liberty, freedom and representative government was transformed into "the statue of free migration".
