'Supreme Court Revives ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers' diff viewer (4/5)

This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on March 11, 2020 18:54 (UTC). 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.

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next version

Previous version 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next version

Version 4	Version 5
Supreme Court Revives ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers	Supreme Court Revives ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers
2020-03-20 03:56:25 UTC	2020-06-01 22:08:34 UTC (2 months 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.”
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.
	Updated June 1, 2020
	Exercise researchers and physicians have some blunt advice for those of us aiming to return to regular exercise now: Start slowly and then rev up your workouts, also slowly. American adults tended to be about 12 percent less active after the stay-at-home mandates began in March than they were in January. But there are steps you can take to ease your way back into regular exercise safely. First, “start at no more than 50 percent of the exercise you were doing before Covid,” says Dr. Monica Rho, the chief of musculoskeletal medicine at the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago. Thread in some preparatory squats, too, she advises. “When you haven’t been exercising, you lose muscle mass.” Expect some muscle twinges after these preliminary, post-lockdown sessions, especially a day or two later. But sudden or increasing pain during exercise is a clarion call to stop and return home.
	States are reopening bit by bit. This means that more public spaces are available for use and more and more businesses are being allowed to open again. The federal government is largely leaving the decision up to states, and some state leaders are leaving the decision up to local authorities. Even if you aren’t being told to stay at home, it’s still a good idea to limit trips outside and your interaction with other people.
	Touching contaminated objects and then infecting ourselves with the germs is not typically how the virus spreads. But it can happen. A number of studies of flu, rhinovirus, coronavirus and other microbes have shown that respiratory illnesses, including the new coronavirus, can spread by touching contaminated surfaces, particularly in places like day care centers, offices and hospitals. But a long chain of events has to happen for the disease to spread that way. The best way to protect yourself from coronavirus — whether it’s surface transmission or close human contact — is still social distancing, washing your hands, not touching your face and wearing masks.
	Common symptoms include fever, a dry cough, fatigue and difficulty breathing or shortness of breath. Some of these symptoms overlap with those of the flu, making detection difficult, but runny noses and stuffy sinuses are less common. The C.D.C. has also added chills, muscle pain, sore throat, headache and a new loss of the sense of taste or smell as symptoms to look out for. Most people fall ill five to seven days after exposure, but symptoms may appear in as few as two days or as many as 14 days.
	If air travel is unavoidable, there are some steps you can take to protect yourself. Most important: Wash your hands often, and stop touching your face. If possible, choose a window seat. A study from Emory University found that during flu season, the safest place to sit on a plane is by a window, as people sitting in window seats had less contact with potentially sick people. Disinfect hard surfaces. When you get to your seat and your hands are clean, use disinfecting wipes to clean the hard surfaces at your seat like the head and arm rest, the seatbelt buckle, the remote, screen, seat back pocket and the tray table. If the seat is hard and nonporous or leather or pleather, you can wipe that down, too. (Using wipes on upholstered seats could lead to a wet seat and spreading of germs rather than killing them.)
	More than 40 million people — the equivalent of 1 in 4 U.S. workers — have filed for unemployment benefits since the pandemic took hold. One in five who were working in February reported losing a job or being furloughed in March or the beginning of April, data from a Federal Reserve survey released on May 14 showed, and that pain was highly concentrated among low earners. Fully 39 percent of former workers living in a household earning $40,000 or less lost work, compared with 13 percent in those making more than $100,000, a Fed official said.
	Yes, but make sure you keep six feet of distance between you and people who don’t live in your home. Even if you just hang out in a park, rather than go for a jog or a walk, getting some fresh air, and hopefully sunshine, is a good idea.
	Taking one’s temperature to look for signs of fever is not as easy as it sounds, as “normal” temperature numbers can vary, but generally, keep an eye out for a temperature of 100.5 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. If you don’t have a thermometer (they can be pricey these days), there are other ways to figure out if you have a fever, or are at risk of Covid-19 complications.
	The C.D.C. has recommended that all Americans wear cloth masks if they go out in public. This is a shift in federal guidance reflecting new concerns that the coronavirus is being spread by infected people who have no symptoms. Until now, the C.D.C., like the W.H.O., has advised that ordinary people don’t need to wear masks unless they are sick and coughing. Part of the reason was to preserve medical-grade masks for health care workers who desperately need them at a time when they are in continuously short supply. Masks don’t replace hand washing and social distancing.
	If you’ve been exposed to the coronavirus or think you have, and have a fever or symptoms like a cough or difficulty breathing, call a doctor. They should give you advice on whether you should be tested, how to get tested, and how to seek medical treatment without potentially infecting or exposing others.
	If you’re sick and you think you’ve been exposed to the new coronavirus, the C.D.C. recommends that you call your healthcare provider and explain your symptoms and fears. They will decide if you need to be tested. Keep in mind that there’s a chance — because of a lack of testing kits or because you’re asymptomatic, for instance — you won’t be able to get tested.
	Charity Navigator, which evaluates charities using a numbers-based system, has a running list of nonprofits working in communities affected by the outbreak. You can give blood through the American Red Cross, and World Central Kitchen has stepped in to distribute meals in major cities.
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.”