Migrants who are still in Mexico but near the U.S. border don’t enjoy the same rights as those who have already crossed into America, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a decision reaffirming the primacy of international boundaries.
The 6-3 decision overturns a lower court ruling that had held humanitarian protections such as asylum could be claimed even by migrants who had yet to reach U.S. soil.
“That is wrong,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said, writing for the majority.
The ruling gives tacit approval to a border control policy known as “metering,” which was pioneered by the Obama administration and adopted by later presidents. That policy limited the number of people who could show up at a border crossing on any given day and demand asylum.
Immigrant rights groups argued it denied deserving migrants their right to asylum, but the government said that without metering, the border had descended into chaos.
Migrants had figured out the system was overloaded, and if they made a claim, even if it was bogus, they could earn a quick catch-and-release and spend years here, with quasi-legal status, while their case wound its way through the immigration courts.
The legal issue before the court on Thursday was asylum law, which allows claims by anyone who “arrives in the United States.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that those who approached the U.S. were arriving, and therefore could claim protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Justice Alito, joined by the court’s other GOP appointees, said that interpretation stretched the law too far.
“The wisdom of the policy of metering alien arrivals at the southern border is not before us. We decide only that an alien standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States.’ The INA neither entitles such an alien to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him,” Justice Alito wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the dissent, saying Congress intended to extend asylum even beyond U.S. borders.
“The majority ignores the statutory context and history, not to mention the longstanding position of the Executive Branch, all of which show that any noncitizen arriving at our doorstep and seeking admission must be inspected and allowed to apply for asylum, regardless of whether her foot has crossed the threshold,” the Obama appointee wrote.
Asylum is the protection the U.S. offers for those who have reached American soil and who face persecution if returned to their previous country. It’s similar to refugee status, which is granted to those who face persecution but are still outside U.S. borders.
Justice Sotomayor said the government’s metering policy has put migrants in danger.
In some cases, they are forced to wait in rough conditions in Mexico, where they face robbery, assault and kidnapping. Some have even been murdered while waiting their turn to enter the U.S. and claim asylum, the justice said.
Others decide to cut the line and sneak across the border, sometimes drowning in the Rio Grande or dying of exposure in the desert as a result.
Justice Sotomayor said she read the law to demand more of the U.S.
She said that to “arrive” means to “reach a destination,” and those who show up at the threshold of the border have done that, even if they are still on the other side.
Justice Alito, though, said there’s no reason to give U.S. law “extraterritorial reach.”
“Metering does not permanently bar any alien from arriving in the United States and then applying for asylum. It merely delays the date when some may enter,” he wrote.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.