This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/us/supreme-court-mexico-asylum-seekers.html

The article has changed 33 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Supreme Court Revives ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers Supreme Court Revives ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers
(8 days later)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to maintain a program that has forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their requests are heard. An appeals court had blocked the program, saying it was at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to maintain a program that has forced about 60,000 asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their requests are heard. An appeals court had blocked the program, saying it was at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”
The Supreme Court’s order was brief and unsigned, and it gave no reasons for staying the appeals court’s ruling while the case moved forward. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have denied the administration’s request for a stay.The Supreme Court’s order was brief and unsigned, and it gave no reasons for staying the appeals court’s ruling while the case moved forward. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that she would have denied the administration’s request for a stay.
The ruling, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, applied to the two border states within its jurisdiction, California and Arizona, and was to take effect on Thursday.The ruling, from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, applied to the two border states within its jurisdiction, California and Arizona, and was to take effect on Thursday.
Judy Rabinovitz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the program, expressed dismay at the Supreme Court’s temporary action but said she hoped the justices would strike the program down in the end.Judy Rabinovitz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents people and groups challenging the program, expressed dismay at the Supreme Court’s temporary action but said she hoped the justices would strike the program down in the end.
“The court of appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal,” Ms. Rabinovitz said in a statement. “The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.”“The court of appeals unequivocally declared this policy to be illegal,” Ms. Rabinovitz said in a statement. “The Supreme Court should as well. Asylum seekers face grave danger and irreversible harm every day this depraved policy remains in effect.”
The Justice Department said the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the administration to maintain the program, known formally as Migrant Protection Protocols, was a welcome development.The Justice Department said the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the administration to maintain the program, known formally as Migrant Protection Protocols, was a welcome development.
“We are gratified that the Supreme Court granted a stay, which prevents a district court injunction from impairing the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “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.”“We are gratified that the Supreme Court granted a stay, which prevents a district court injunction from impairing the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “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.”
Get an informed guide to the global outbreak with our daily coronavirus
newsletter.
In urging the Supreme Court to take prompt action, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said the appeals court’s ruling had already caused chaos at the border.In urging the Supreme Court to take prompt action, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco said the appeals court’s ruling had already caused chaos at the border.
Without a stay from the Supreme Court, he wrote, the appeals court’s ruling was “virtually guaranteed to impose irreparable harm by prompting a rush on the border and potentially requiring the government to allow into the United States and detain thousands of aliens who lack any entitlement to enter this country, or else to release them into the interior where many will simply disappear.”Without a stay from the Supreme Court, he wrote, the appeals court’s ruling was “virtually guaranteed to impose irreparable harm by prompting a rush on the border and potentially requiring the government to allow into the United States and detain thousands of aliens who lack any entitlement to enter this country, or else to release them into the interior where many will simply disappear.”
The challenged policy applies to people who leave a third country and travel through Mexico to reach the United States border.The challenged policy applies to people who leave a third country and travel through Mexico to reach the United States border.
Since the policy was put in place at the beginning of last year, tens of thousands of people have waited for immigration hearings in unsanitary tent encampments exposed to the elements. There have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnap and torture.Since the policy was put in place at the beginning of last year, tens of thousands of people have waited for immigration hearings in unsanitary tent encampments exposed to the elements. There have been widespread reports of sexual assault, kidnap and torture.
The program “has put asylum seekers directly in harm’s way,” lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups told the Supreme Court in a brief urging it not to intervene. “Asylum seekers returned to Mexico are sent to some of the most violent areas in the world.”The program “has put asylum seekers directly in harm’s way,” lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups told the Supreme Court in a brief urging it not to intervene. “Asylum seekers returned to Mexico are sent to some of the most violent areas in the world.”
“Indeed,” the brief said, “the U.S. State Department itself has recognized the ‘victimization of migrants’ in Mexico ‘by criminal groups and in some cases by police, immigration officers and customs officials,’ including kidnappings, extortion and sexual violence.”“Indeed,” the brief said, “the U.S. State Department itself has recognized the ‘victimization of migrants’ in Mexico ‘by criminal groups and in some cases by police, immigration officers and customs officials,’ including kidnappings, extortion and sexual violence.”
Immigration proponents and health officials have grown increasingly concerned about the migrant camps in Mexico as the coronavirus continues to spread. Dr. Maura Sammon, the medical director for Global Response Management, which provides care to a tent encampment of 2,500 migrants in Matamoros, Mexico, said she was beginning to lose volunteers who would have normally come from American universities.Immigration proponents and health officials have grown increasingly concerned about the migrant camps in Mexico as the coronavirus continues to spread. Dr. Maura Sammon, the medical director for Global Response Management, which provides care to a tent encampment of 2,500 migrants in Matamoros, Mexico, said she was beginning to lose volunteers who would have normally come from American universities.
While there were no confirmed cases in the camp, she said she was worried about a potential outbreak among the vulnerable population. “We’re stuck with essentially nothing,” Dr. Sammon said. “We are anticipating this will burn through our population rapidly.”While there were no confirmed cases in the camp, she said she was worried about a potential outbreak among the vulnerable population. “We’re stuck with essentially nothing,” Dr. Sammon said. “We are anticipating this will burn through our population rapidly.”
Mr. Francisco wrote that the Migrant Protection Protocols had proved successful. “It has been an enormously effective and indispensable tool in the United States’ efforts, working cooperatively with Mexico, to address the migration crisis on our Southwest border,” he wrote.Mr. Francisco wrote that the Migrant Protection Protocols had proved successful. “It has been an enormously effective and indispensable tool in the United States’ efforts, working cooperatively with Mexico, to address the migration crisis on our Southwest border,” he wrote.
The policy has important exceptions, Mr. Francisco wrote. It did not apply, he said, “to any alien who will more likely than not face state-sponsored violence” or “to Mexican nationals or certain especially vulnerable aliens such as unaccompanied children.”The policy has important exceptions, Mr. Francisco wrote. It did not apply, he said, “to any alien who will more likely than not face state-sponsored violence” or “to Mexican nationals or certain especially vulnerable aliens such as unaccompanied children.”
As a general matter, though, he wrote that the United States was not obliged under the treaties it had signed to protect migrants from “routine criminal acts that do not amount to persecution or torture.”As a general matter, though, he wrote that the United States was not obliged under the treaties it had signed to protect migrants from “routine criminal acts that do not amount to persecution or torture.”
Blocking the policy would have negative consequences, Mr. Francisco wrote.Blocking the policy would have negative consequences, Mr. Francisco wrote.
“Processing a sudden influx of tens of thousands of migrants — each of whom would need to be screened, including for urgent medical issues — would impose an enormous burden on border authorities and undercut their ability to carry out other critical missions,” he wrote, “such as protecting against national-security threats, detecting and confiscating illicit materials, and ensuring efficient trade and travel.”“Processing a sudden influx of tens of thousands of migrants — each of whom would need to be screened, including for urgent medical issues — would impose an enormous burden on border authorities and undercut their ability to carry out other critical missions,” he wrote, “such as protecting against national-security threats, detecting and confiscating illicit materials, and ensuring efficient trade and travel.”
Customs and Border Protection officials, fearing that blocking the program could prompt large crowds of migrants to seek entry to the United States, have taken aggressive measures, deploying 160 troops to two ports of entry along the southwestern border in Texas and California.Customs and Border Protection officials, fearing that blocking the program could prompt large crowds of migrants to seek entry to the United States, have taken aggressive measures, deploying 160 troops to two ports of entry along the southwestern border in Texas and California.
The Supreme Court has recently stayed several injunctions issued by lower courts blocking aspects of the administration’s tough new immigration policies. In a pair of recent decisions, for instance, the court lifted injunctions that had blocked the administration’s plans to deny green cards to immigrants who were thought to be likely to become “public charges” by even the occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.The Supreme Court has recently stayed several injunctions issued by lower courts blocking aspects of the administration’s tough new immigration policies. In a pair of recent decisions, for instance, the court lifted injunctions that had blocked the administration’s plans to deny green cards to immigrants who were thought to be likely to become “public charges” by even the occasional and minor use of public benefits like Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers.
The vote was 5 to 4 in both cases, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. Dissenting from one such order last month, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the administration had become too quick to run to the Supreme Court after interim losses in the lower courts.The vote was 5 to 4 in both cases, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority. Dissenting from one such order last month, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the administration had become too quick to run to the Supreme Court after interim losses in the lower courts.
“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,” she wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,” she wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”
She continued: “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the court would grant it.”She continued: “It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the court would grant it.”
President Trump criticized Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, saying she should recuse herself from “all Trump, or Trump related, matters!”President Trump criticized Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, saying she should recuse herself from “all Trump, or Trump related, matters!”
Senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly referred to lower court judges who have temporarily stymied the administration’s immigration policies as “activist judges,” while praising the Supreme Court for upholding the administration’s immigration agenda.Senior officials with the Department of Homeland Security have repeatedly referred to lower court judges who have temporarily stymied the administration’s immigration policies as “activist judges,” while praising the Supreme Court for upholding the administration’s immigration agenda.
In September, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to move forward with barring asylum for migrants who had traveled through another country on the way to the United States without being denied protections in that country, effectively banning asylum for most Central American migrants. In July, the court allowed Mr. Trump to use Pentagon money to construct a wall at the southwest border.In September, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to move forward with barring asylum for migrants who had traveled through another country on the way to the United States without being denied protections in that country, effectively banning asylum for most Central American migrants. In July, the court allowed Mr. Trump to use Pentagon money to construct a wall at the southwest border.
On Wednesday, even as the Supreme Court allowed the Migrant Protection Protocols to remain in effect, the State Department issued a human rights report that warned of “arbitrary killings, forced disappearance and torture” by armed groups in Mexico.On Wednesday, even as the Supreme Court allowed the Migrant Protection Protocols to remain in effect, the State Department issued a human rights report that warned of “arbitrary killings, forced disappearance and torture” by armed groups in Mexico.
“There were numerous instances of armed groups limiting the movements of migrants,” according to the report. “including by kidnappings and homicides.”“There were numerous instances of armed groups limiting the movements of migrants,” according to the report. “including by kidnappings and homicides.”