U.S. Supreme Court Allows Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Asylum Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed a win to President Donald Trump by leaving in effect a policy that requires thousands of people seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated.

The court granted an emergency request filed by the administration and lifted a partial block on the program imposed by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court on Feb. 28 issued a ruling blocking the policy but then immediately put it on hold while the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The brief court order noted that one of the nine justices, liberal Sonia Sotomayor, would have denied the application.

“Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect,” said Judy Rabinovitz, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents those challenging the policy.

Trump has declared the policy, announced in December 2018, a success in reducing the flow of hundreds of thousands of people from Central America into the United States as he campaigns for a second term in office.

Challengers, including 11 asylum seekers who were returned to Mexico and several immigration advocacy groups, say the program, called the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), violates U.S. immigration law and international obligations on the treatment of asylum seekers.

“The Migrant Protection Protocols, implemented pursuant to express authority granted by Congress decades ago, have been critical to restoring the government’s ability to manage the Southwest border and to work cooperatively with the Mexican government to address illegal immigration,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

About 60,000 people have been sent back to Mexico to await the outcome of their cases in often dangerous border towns where they are vulnerable to kidnapping, rape, robbery and other crimes while living in sometimes unsanitary conditions. The government says 36,000 cases have now been resolved and warned that those with pending claims might have rushed the border if the policy was partially blocked.

Trump, who has made cracking down on immigration a central theme of his more than three years in the White House, has sought, through a series of new policies and rule changes, to reduce asylum claims..

The policies on curbing asylum applications have cut the number of illegal crossings and have been more successful than Trump’s efforts to build a physical barrier on the border.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg and Kristina Cooke; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Tom Brown)


  1. Elections have consequences including a court which upholds the Constitution.
    The president has control over who comes in (Reader’s Digest version).

    Let’s also consider that any and all immigrants allowed in must pass health checks. That’s a consideration as much as whether they will be able to support themselves.

  2. Another direct refutation of the 9th Circus. Good.

    Especially in light of the Wuhan virus we should be administering health checks and quarantines on any immigrants, especially those trying to come here illegally or via *ahem* asylum.

    This is further argument in making applying for asylum available ONLY in their home countries or in the next closest with an embassy. Letting them get this close is a BAD idea.

    1. I actually disagree with the US (or any Democratic Nation) having “asylum” as a crutch of convenience and permitting Illegal Aliens (Invaders) to overwhelm our Sovereign Country with diseased and poverty-based persons. Most Aliens are from Socialist and Communist Countries which does not bode well, encourage promotion or expansion of those failed political ideologies. LAWS concerning the LEGAL entry into a Nation are on the books in most – if not all – Countries and those LAWS should be enforced – WITH force, if necessary – to the very last letter. A number of diseases the US eliminated years ago are being reintroduced by Illegal Aliens. Their entry should be blocked by any physical or military barrier made available to protect US – as in We the People.

      1. There are those legitimately in need of “asylum”, particularly the Christians currently being persecuted/massacred in a ME Holocaust.

        BUT why should we be the ones to offer asylum when much closer and culturally similar countries are available? No, they want the “gold” ring of US citzenship and its benefits.

Comments are closed.