If the Supreme Court blocked the MPP, the optics of tens of thousands of poor and desperate migrants pouring across the borders would be very bad for the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee. Americans who want Trump defeated in November should be thankful for this decision.
3
Trump is 100% right on this issue and glad the Supreme Court upheld this. Globalism and open borders have exacerbated the spread of coronavirus.
The foolishness of open borders is one of the issues costing Sanders support. When he teamed up with AOC I knew that was the end of his campaign and I actually like Sanders. I also see problems for Biden and his ties to the open borders lobby.
Trump looked very presidential tonight and he is the only one Americans trust to close the borders and entry points when necessary.
53
@Hellen
I mostly agree with your post but Trump has never been presidential.
The GOP is as much to blame for the mess that is our immigration laws as the Democrats are - if not more. The Republicans want immigration. Were that not so, we would already have implemented E Verify countrywide.
While I am glad that agreements have been made with Mexico and Central America, Trump only wants to use immigration as a cudgel to get what "he" wants - Power.
As much as I want secure borders and reasonable asylum laws, I will never make a vote because of one issue.
I am glad the Court let MPP continue and I do think that "any" administration that develops rules and agreements to enact and enforce the Immigration Laws enacted by Congress that any challenge to that rule should have to go before Congress, not the Courts. That's especially true of Immigration enforcement which falls under the jurisdiction of DOJ.
4
@Hellen He's also the only one who can save the world. By resigning effective immediately.
3
@Hellen Bernie Sanders' capitulation to the open borders crowd (as recently as a few years ago he still resisted Jorge Ramos' attempts to goad him into this subject in their TV interviews) is a serious tragedy that happened to this man. He broke.
8
I am pleasantly surprised by several comments below in applauding SCOTUS - though never crediting POTUS for a tough stand on this issue.
As the Solicitor General said - no treaty should oblige USA to be a policeman of the world.
These so called migrants who as many below have noted are really economic migrants - are making a choice to attempt to enter America illegally.
America has a robust program for temporary and seasonal workers - which many of them perhaps do not qualify.
At the end of the day - the inferior courts hopefully will learn that immigration policies are definitely and emphatically NOT the province of the courts.
It is to the 1st and 2nd branch of our government where this policy belongs.
I think all these SCOTUS decisions are a harbinger on how it will rule on DACA - which will force both Congress and POTUS to engage in a serious dialog to fix some of these issues for generations.
14
Plato argued that democracy was doomed to fail, perhaps because he witnessed the Athenian democracy sentence his mentor, Plato, to death in 399 BC.
But Plato might have had a point. Democracies only work if the voters are well-informed on the issues.
And Democrats in the US are badly informed regarding the roots of illegal immigration.
The scourge which afflicts the third world is population growth. You can witness its effects directly by visiting slums in the third world, in Kinshasa, Lagos, Cairo, Delhi and Dhaka, for example. Tourists visiting the Taj Mahal are often overcome by the evidence of bone-crushing poverty in the surroundings.
Global population growth is the primary reason for global warming, not the internal combustion engine. The ICE is just a form of transport. At low population density its pollution is harmless, it is congestion that causes the harm, too many people crowded on a finite planet.
The way Americans see population growth is through illegal immigration. But letting more immigrants in makes no sense. The numbers admitted are too small to have a real effect on population growth itself. On the other hand, admitting illegal immigrants increases the number of poor in the US, filling American prisons and contributing to the rise of homeless encampments.
We have to stop illegal immigration. We may vote for open borders in 2020. But the problem will come back to haunt us in 2024 and 2028 until democracy itself becomes only a memory.
21
@Blaise Descartes
Where to start?
I acknowledge your overall point about the unsustainability of global population growth; however, the idea that therefore keeping people out of this country somehow helps us, or helps the world in the effort to stem that growth is bizarre.
And, by the way, Americans are 5% of the world's population, and we create 15% of the world's greenhouse gases and consume roughly 20% of the world's resources.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-America-stacks-up-greenhouse-gas-emissions-180963560/
4
@Mark Keller We Americans certainly use far more resources per capita than almost all other countries. So when someone immigrates here from elsewhere, they automatically increase their resource consumption. A typical European will double their carbon footprint. A typical Central American will increase their carbon footprint by more than ten fold.
Sine over 90% of our population growth comes from immigration, wouldn't it make sense to reduce immigration to help reduce our country's environmental impact? This together with efforts to reduce per capita consumption is necessary if sustainability is the goal.
13
@Blaise Descartes NOt sure where to start but perhaps the obvious - how does immigration cause the deterioration of democracy. Immigrants are bound by our laws,subscribe to our institutions, regardless what those on the right say. There is also a very common public misperception that it is EASY to immigrate to America. I assure you it is not. It is a long, arduous and often unsuccessful process - a process long broken by Republican budgets (though Obama bears some responisbility for the increasingly harsher policing of immigration). There are those who slip in under the radar, those who are forced onto public assistance and they do burden the system to a degree. But I would hesitate to say that the burden they pose as they doggedly try to establish a working, contributing life in America is worse than that placed on me and other taxpayers by native-born citizens, gaming the system with consummate skill. Democracy will become a memory in the same way the Weimar Republic expired - by giving into passions that look for scapegoats rather than solutions.
Fix the systems! Fund it, relax the courts oversight, streamline it and raise the bar. Not all of us who immigrated here were escpaing poverty and persecution.
1
All nations have requirements for, and limitations on, who may become citizens and how.
Most Americans welcome LEGAL immigrants, but do not want ILLEGAL immigrants. They recognize that the US cannot afford (or choose not) to support our own citizens: the poor, the ill, elderly, disabled, veterans, et al., and that they and other US taxpayers cannot possibly support the 20 million illegal immigrants already in the US, much less the hundreds of millions of foreigners who would like to come here.
US laws allow foreigners to seek entry and citizenship. Those who do not follow these laws are in this country illegally and should be detained and deported; this is policy in other countries, too.
The cruelty lies not in limiting legal immigration, or detaining and deporting illegal immigrants, or forcing those who wish to enter the US to undergo processing and review.
What is cruel, unethical and probably illegal is encouraging parents to bring their children on the dangerous trek to US borders and teaching the parents how to game the system to enter the US by falsely claiming asylum, persecution, etc. Indeed, many believe bringing children on such perilous journeys constitutes child abuse.
No other nation has open borders, nor should the US.
47
No other country give birthright citizenship to the children born to foreigners. Abolishing that would be a great start to discourage illegal immigration and fake asylum seekers.
27
Apparently the Supreme Court thinks it is more important to appease Trump then to follow federal and international laws. Folks, I think we are officially under the control of a dictator. Good luck validating the results of this year's elections. I wonder if Canada will accept this liberal "elite" (this means I actually read books and believe humans are capable of altruism) as a political refugee.
32
Obviously, a minority opinion. Check out the other comments and you will see that, even in this liberal echo chamber, most people support a more restrictive immigration system.
22
@Kristen Rigney “ I wonder if Canada will accept this liberal "elite" (this means I actually read books and believe humans are capable of altruism) as a political refugee.”
I sure hope so.
7
Have a good trip.
3
When the Presidency and the Senate are back in Democratic control, the first order of business must be to reverse the Republican gerrymander of the Supreme Court
25
@Kevin - run on that platform and Trump gets four more years. Best keep the plan to yourself.
12
You’ve somehow missed the meaning of gerrymandering. It has to do with voting boundaries, not judicial appointees.
2
Still another political decision from the REpublican politicians masquerading as judges by this supreme court. The Roberts court sees itself as an extension of the TRumpster administration.
This is subversive of American democracy.
Send them home. I sure these are hard working folks, maybe. Thos being the case then maybe fixing their homelands rather than gorging the American southern borders is time better spent. Finally, if they don't go back to their homelands this coronavirus fiasco will remedy the matter for all involved parties.
5
Refugees are probably like thank god. We don’t want to catch Corona in the US.
Once again, the best Court that money can buy !!
2
Brown v. Board of Education: unanimous
Robert’s Court: anonymous
The US Supreme Court is guilty of depraved indifference on many fronts and works against the rule of law. My reasons are as follows; They allow Corporations to buy our politicians, they are blind to one person one vote by gutting the voting rights act. And gerrymandering, they have no backbone to see and rule on the evil Republicans do. Now they drag-out the appeals court ruling while suffering on a mass scale is happening on our boarder. Roberts knows God and caring Americans are watching his shamelessness on the bench. We need to march on this reckless & wicked Supreme Court.
2
If it's the right thing to do why didn't they sign it?
Of course it did! The Robert's Supreme Court forfeited its status as an independent and co-equal branch of government awhile ago. Now, it's just a cheap, useless rubber stamp for the Trump administration.
1
No signatures. No reasons.
COWARDS
"The cornerstone of the 1951 Convention is the principle of non-refoulement contained in Article 33. According to this principle, a refugee should not be returned to a country where he or she faces serious threats to his or her life or freedom."
"non-refoulement" applies to being returned to ANY country that is unsafe, not just to the country of origin.
Of particular importance is the right described in Article 31 of the Convention: "The right not to be punished for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting State." That is, a refugee may enter a country from which they are seeking refuge even illegally, and the signatory nation may not punish them for it. THIS IS OUR LAW, and Trump is putting the country in violation of it.
[https://www.unhcr.org/.../1951-convention-relating-status...]
1
Many good points here. The logistic and economic burden for such a massive influx of immigrants is a valid concern. On the other hand, our policy to let them stay in Mexico seems reactionary and misguided. I just wish we would acknowledge the horrible conditions these people are fleeing from, and give them hope that the USA will help them. That is the spirit of America. Our politicians can’t seem to agree on even that. That is the shameful part.
1
The Ninth Circuit Court is the most overturned court for a reason!
9
I hesitate to think what would have been happening at our southern border if MPP had not been implemented so I am glad of this decision, today.
I am definitely not a Trump supporter and I know that his ceaseless talk about "build the wall" actually attracted more of them to come here along with people from all over the world. ... But the fact remains that something had to be done and this agreement with Mexico should have been done long ago. ...and, actually, what we should have had when NAFTA was started was a "safe third country" arrangement with Mexico like we have with Canada.
They have benefitted much by these trade deals and, yet, they feel no responsibility to control the flow or to the migrants except to give them a free travel pass to our border. Mexico needs to become a good neighbor and agree to the safe third country and the US can support them much as the EU does with Turkey. The support could possibly come from remittances from payments to CA.
Leaving MPP in place was the right decision.
12
Just in case people missed it, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case. They have only let the policy stay in place while it is being decided.
1
Lower courts should not be making final decisions with nationwide application. Whatever decision they make need to be put on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court makes the final decision.
10
Why is Central America a basket case? Worth exploring, particularly the role of past US governments.
I think though all this still points to the need for non-sentimental solutions. Asylum to those who make the trip isn't a viable long term solution. These regions need to lifted up like we did in Europe and Japan after WW2.
17
@RamS There is plenty of blame to go around. This reminds me of the question Pope John Paul 2 asked during a trip to South America, "why are you so poor?"
Answer: "Why are they so corrupt?"
1
@RamS Central America is a basket case because of America and American companies
2
Human migration is a force of nature - we think we are that much better than animals but given that few of us act like it, I doubt we are that are different. Just like Europeans wandered all over the world when their countries' opportunities became limited to them and their population increased, so too will people from other regions move around.
Immigration over the last several hundred years is the primary reason for this country's claim to greatness. And countries like Canada, Australia and even the US are among the top for the values and ideals associated with their best sides.
That's all I have to say about that. I'm only here because the red carpet was rolled out for me and was promised and given a lot of what I wanted if I stayed, etc. and I still plan to die in another country (not the one I was born in) once I finish with my work (which right now is trying to discover therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2).
5
@RamS Well, my family was brought here through slavery. And my ancestors built this country and should not have to compete with illegal aliens. The promises for equality have not been fully granted to American Blacks. Let's take care of our own, FIRST! Like the President said, Americans first. I agree.
6
The murders of a Mormon family by warring cartels demonstrates clearly the dangers these migrants face every moment they are in Mexico. Mexican authorities clearly support the cartels by either ignoring them or joining them. Unrestricted immigration is not a cure though. The real answer everyone on both sides of this argument should be demanding is for the Mexican government to root out the cartels and destroy them while cleaning it's own house. Concurrently, we should be insisting Central American governments eliminate the many threats and conditions that sent these migrants north through an equally violent and corrupt country.
5
@Angelsea You think they became that way in a vaccuum while we were busy entertaining ourselves to death?
4
Thank goodness that the Supreme Court struck down the 9th Circus. As an attorney, I see and know plenty of judges who do not follow the law, but do whatever they want.
45
Unbelievable: We're in the middle of an epidemic, which was largely exacerbated by international travel, and the commenters here want to maximize the influx of foreigners into the country. They not only want to bring in as many of them as possible, they even go further and insist that asylum hearings take place directly in the US, rather than in the safe haven (third) country. Look at this paragraph: "Immigration proponents and health officials have grown increasingly concerned about the migrant camps in Mexico as the coronavirus continues to spread." The writers aren't concerned about the coronavirus infecting Americans. Americans are the last thought on their minds.
55
@Eugene When has Mexico ever been considered a safe haven (third) country? Not even Hollywood portrayed that.
1
When will the pro immigration, pro “asylum” crowd come to understand that it is not immigration which the “anti immigrant” crowd sees as a problem, and that in general people in this country, even the most Republican or Trump supporters, are not anti-immigrant. What these people are correctly against is the unregulated, out of control influx of low income, uneducated immigrants… And it is only by conflating the situation that false arguments about the “value of immigration” are created and promulgated.
Simple facts: The completely non-partisan National Academy of Sciences released a report within the past two years, widely covered (and widely spun to the best the pro crowd could spin it) which said in no uncertain terms that each and every immigrant that comes to this country with less than a high school education costs, over the course of their life, an average of $650,000. Unfortunately, the next generation cost somewhere between 450 to 500,000, if my memory is correct. Do the math - the cost is astronomical, and does not even take into account the unquantifiable costs of increased pollution, traffic, time s at emergency rooms etc etc.
These people do not assimilate, and against the popular arguments do NOT create a net positive for our economy or for our nation. By all meanslet’s have a merit based system that ensures everyone coming to this country contributes in some positive ways, but enough of the out of control population growth coming from Central America.
58
@LA Realist This country is not merit based as exemplified by the cheating scandal by wealthy white people who thought their children were too stupid to get into college on their own merits. Is that the merit system you are referencing? Or is it the merit system where you give your family members, friends and donors to your campaign jobs that they have absolutely no qualifications?
shame. shame. shame. shame. shame.
so much for the "Christian" ethics espoused by the right side of the bench.
15
@brian
Christianity has nothing to do with it.
The SCOTUS is merely following the law.
2
If they are (the Supreme Court), just following the law, the why not rule on the law?
I am pleasantly surprised by several comments below in applauding SCOTUS - though never crediting POTUS for a tough stand on this issue.
As the Solicitor General said - no treaty should oblige USA to be a policeman of the world.
These so called migrants who as many below have noted are really economic migrants - are making a choice to attempt to enter America illegally.
America has a robust program for temporary and seasonal workers - which many of them perhaps do not qualify.
At the end of the day - the inferior courts hopefully will learn that immigration policies are definitely and emphatically NOT the province of the courts.
It is to the 1st and 2nd branch of our government where this policy belongs.
I think all these SCOTUS decisions are a harbinger on how it will rule on DACA - which will force both Congress and POTUS to engage in a serious dialog to fix some of these issues for generations.
37
Another reason why the next President must be ABT: Anyone But Trump. And since the Democratic candidate will clearly be Biden, Biden must be the next President. Maybe he's not perfect, but he's ABT.
12
Democrats are insane to pursue ideological based open boarders policies that are utterly unsustainable and damaging to the the country and the citizens. Their blind pursuit of this will be their undoing.
55
@Daphne Misinformation dissemination on full display. Do you believe you should leave American citizens on a ship with the coronavirus just to mislead the public to thinking that the number of confirmed cases is lower than the actual number?
1
@vikingway2deal
What does that have to do with the article?
My point is that Democrats have an opportunity defeat Trump at this point in time when the public is alarmed by the sars-covid-2 virus. Yet here they go with open boarders, free this and that for the whole world, ideological ranting. Not safe, not in any way sustainable or even economically possible.
4
The American citizenry simply cannot house, feed, educate, nor provide jobs and welfare subsidies for the millions of impoverished foreign nationals (and their offspring) who believe that they’re entitled to come here. We can barely provide resources for our own impoverished population.
That’s the reality. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
71
too simple
we are a rich country and our failure to provide a safety net is a failure of capitalism to ensure our humanity
second, we have always had immigration, and it's an economic driver for our economy
and no one is trafficking your daughter or trying to force your son to join M18. if they were, you wouldnt be writing these simplifications. dont make these things up, educate yourself.
8
@peter
We are a sovereign country with defined borders, immigration laws, and finite environmental and economic resources.
We have a burgeoning population of approximately 350 million people...with over 20 million illegal aliens. Just what kind of overpopulated, environmentally-burdened, socially-divisive and chaotic third world country do you envision here?
43
we have 327 million people, about 11 million undocumented.
and immigration is an economic driver. that's simple.
my fault for trying to make a reasonable argument. sheesh.
5
Let them stay,where they are .If President Trump is so bad let them go back to their own President in their own country and do something there.We cannot cure the entire worlds problems.
48
@Alan Einstoss Except the virus. Staying where they are will be a disaster for the entire region.
Why do you care so much about people who mean you no harm? I just don't get the hate.
7
The justices are now politicos. So sad for our country. Bhaskar, you and trump and his "supremes" are exactly what's wrong with our country.
5
@Pathfox
Article 4 of the Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
Note that the founding fathers used the word "invasion" specifically.
Sorry to disappoint you, there is no mention of open borders in our constitution.
30
A sensible ruling. Gaming the system ends now.
55
Hmmm... maybe you need to start rallying your Congress representatives to start punishing white collar crimes that game the system from within.
7
The moral vacuity of many of these comments, submitted in self-satisfied agreement with the Supreme Court’s shameful stay, perfectly mirror the fundamental cruelty of this Administration’s “perfect” immigration policy. I have to wonder how many of these people dutifully, ever so piously attend Sunday services each week, but never reflect upon their own families’ difficult past immigrant experiences.
13
@John Grillo
How many illegal immigrants are you currently housing and feeding? None. What gives you the right to require I do?
Vacuous moralizing.
26
@John Grillo
There are valid arguments on both sides of the immigration issue. Name calling and judging others is why it is so hard to have a conversation on immigration.
So, what you call moral vacuity of these comments, someone else might say that the moral vacuity lies with families that have too many children to whom they cannot provide a good life. It is the family that already may have one child who decides to have another that is endangering the life of the first child by pushing them ever further into poverty. That is what some of us call moral vacuity.
So then, the question becomes to what extent can we be expected to help those who will not help themselves?
I am glad for this decision from SCOTUS because the Court should not be involved in the Immigration issue and something has to be done now to rein in the lures in our system that make people from all over the World come to our porous borders as well as overstay visas.
Many of us are tired of this and want immigration reined in because we have had too many in too short a time. ...Not because we don't want black and brown as some like to shout. The fact that there are so many black and brown would suggest that is a falsehood. No, there are just too many. It is the same situation we are seeing on the Greek Island of Lesbos where the locals have had enough even though they opened their arms in 2015.
Therefore, people who see the problems with excessive immigration have valid points too.
5
All humans are equal.
Do you believe that? If so, why do some humans get the right to live in this country and others don't?
Now you see why I see our immigration policy as the biggest civil rights issue of our time, all over the world. The feudal idea that we are tied to the land of our birth most die.
3
@Edward Allen Water finds its own level. Your idea would end America as we know it. We would become just another third world nation. You may be okay with that, but I doubt very many of your fellow citizens would agree.
35
@Edward Allen All animals establish spaces that belong to them. Even trees vie for space. The world isn't random, it is defined by natural separations in culture, borders, and language, and that goes for all species in nature. Have you ever read the book "The Selfish Gene"? If not I recommend it.
20
@Edward Allen Um, we have the right to live in this country because we were born here. It's the same in any other country. Seems you believe countries should not exist and everybody should have the right to roam around the planet and settle wherever they want. Get real.
27
Trump appointed justices are overruling the political activists in our judicial system and restoring our country to what it was founded on.
It is good to finally see constitutionalists in the supreme court.
That alone is worth my vote for this president.
Thank you, President Trump.
34
@Bhaskar Huh? This country was founded in open immigration.
Or did your ancestors migrate here twelve thousand years ago?
11
@Bhaskar
One person's constitutionalist is another person's political activist.
Let's be clear: the Supreme Court was not deciding the case.
Staying an appeals court decision, when that decision held that:
"at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”" -
is morally bankrupt.
Why not wait?
If the Court holds for the President in the end, then there is plenty of time to gruesomely cause suffering and maybe even death among the desperate Asylum Seekers.
5
@Mark Keller The vast majority of Central Americans are economic refugees and not in true need of asylum. Not only are they making it hard for those who do need asylum in our country, but they are earning money here, and spending it all elsewhere, they send it all back to Guatemala where they build the biggest house, or buy the biggest truck in the neighborhood. Read the Pew Report on the amount of remittances that flow out of this country to other countries -- country by country. It is an eye opener. Listen to the interviews of those who the papers and radio stations talk to, really listen and they are not seeking anything but a better paying job and money for when they go home after their house was built. They will tell you in their own words is it about making the money and run.
40
A terrible decision that ignores the limits of presidential power. Remain in Mexico is a cop out to avoid dealing with these cases on a real basis. Remain in Mexico is a sham program that. constitutes an unlawful barrier to asylum.
6
@PAUL NOLAN
MPP is not an unreasonable program.
What was unreasonable was for Mexico to basically give the migrants a travel pass through to our border. Now they can take care of those they allowed to use their country as a "walkabout" to the US.
The real sham is the people and their advocates and their smugglers who abuse our immigration system.
3
The application for the stay was presented to Justice Elena Kagan, the former Solicitor General under Obama. As well, the opinion only notes that Justice Sotomayor would object, implying that the other justices either agree or don’t care enough to disagree. That includes the liberal star, Justice Ginsburg. Remember that before calling the court hypocritical or partisan.
18
If the appeals court had gone the other way, this stay would be morally defensible.
However, given that the Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's order was:
"at odds with both federal law and international treaties and was causing “extreme and irreversible harm.”" -
this action is odious and arguably morally corrupt. It will cause suffering and may cause preventable deaths, while the justices take their time to consider the case in the comfort of a very beautiful place to work.
6
@Mark Keller We can't save everyone who makes poor decisions in their lives. So very sadly, there is an over-abundance of suffering in the world. I applaud the Supreme Court for trying to mitigate the suffering of American citizens by not elevating illegal migrants over the quality of life that we have worked to achieve in our great country. We can't take them all and the time has come for other solutions in other places.
14
@lucytru
You would have a great point, if it were a matter of choosing between American and immigrant suffering.
But the truth is, immigration, legal and otherwise, to this point overwhelmingly helps our Americans and our economy:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/4-myths-about-how-immigrants-affect-the-u-s-economy
1
@Mark Keller Silled immigrants help the economy. Unskilled immigrants cost the taxpayer more than they contribute. The Central Americans are largely unskilled immigrants.
4
The generally accepted opinion that the long term effects of immigration on our country are positive is now being questioned by many because they believe that immigration is either totally out of control or at least that it's out of control to an unacceptable degree. But there must be a better solution than just shifting the horrific humanitarian crisis from our southern border to an even more horrific humanitarian crisis inside Mexico. It has taken many decades and considerable exploitation and interference by the U. S. to create the deplorable conditions in C.A. which are the root cause of our immigration dilemma. Appropriate investments and policy incentives to transform our Central American neighbors into more prosperous and just places would be of great benefit to us as well as them.
7
@Tiny Tim You touch on the one point most Americans steadfastly look away from as they argue against the wave of immigration into the US - that they are fleeing from states and conditions which we had a significant hand in creating. What ever was our interest in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Mexico but exploitation? That goes for countries that, while defending some, we spent considerable time and energy gaining a toehold on their resources or established a base with which to police the world - something few administrations admit but actively participate. There's a difference between bringing troops home and abandoning a country that no longer holds our interest.
3
The more the Supreme Court overrules lower courts. the greater the evidence that this is a politicized Republican court. Can it be that a political process selects the cream of the crop, a bank of intellectuals and legal scholars who are smarter than all those judges sitting on district and appellate courts? Yes, John Roberts, the simplest of thinkers can call balls and strikes. And we are watching you throw the game and a political season that democracy might never recover from.
7
@vsr Why do you assume it is the Supreme Court that is politicized rather than the decisions of lower court judges who were appointed by Obama and Clinton? In any event, only Sotomayor dissented from this order. Are Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan now part of the politicized Republican court?
16
@Ashland Well, you can get your first clue in how nakedly politicized the Supreme Court selections are. Take another clue from the actions of Mitch McConnell in regard to President Obama's last nominee. You might also read of the plentiful 2-1 decisions in which a judge appointed by a Republican was in the majority, the same decisions that go on to be overturned by the court's Republican majority. Republicans have been very effective in arguing that their choices reflect a given scholarly interpretation of The Constitution when the claim is simply a deflection from the politics that an increasing number of Americans are seeing in the Supreme Court. Roberts knows the court is losing credibility, but he is simply too subservient to those who brung him to do anything about it.
@vsr How one gets appointed doesn't reflect the decisions that will be made. Otherwise you wouldn't have the Obamacare, abortion, gay rights, death penalty limitations and other issues that were decided for the liberal position. If anyone is politicized, it is the Democratic appointees who vote more as a block than the Republican appointees.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/StatPack_OT18-7_5_19_23-26.pdf
I am overwhelmed by the sympathy shown by the commenters here. Mexico, Honduras, and El Salvador are catastrophes largely due to the Cartels, and U.S. Consumers are the principle customers. Legalize dope of all kinds. The war on drugs is an abject failure. Not many Colombians massed at the border, are there?
6
Great news!
28
Frank Sinatra sang *........
"Some people get their kicks
Stompin' on a dream"
And these people have no business being on the supreme court of the United States... or, in the oval office.
*From "That's Life"
2
The Supine Court once again in all its glory
4
In SCOTUS decisions calling balls and strikes as Chief Justice Roberts purports to do, sounds fair but not if the court keeps moving the strike zone.
3
With the partisan (illegitimate) SCOTUS firmly in place, the extreme right, religious fanatics, and other sorts of authoritarians and greedy oligarchs can expect their full support!
The United States experiment is over. We have learned, again, that there are humans for whom greed and delight in causing suffering are central.
11
@Baruch
SCOTUS is partisan? Not nearly as partisan as the "activist" judges who only look to overturn anything trump does.
28
@bored critic
Bingo, nail hit firmly on the head!
12
@bored critic Overturning any of the executive monkeyshines of last three years would probably restore a great deal of the country's stability. This train is grinding in the gravel.
1
It is no longer the United States Supreme Court. It is the Trump Supreme Court.
9
@Jeff If it is the "Trump Supreme Court" then it has broad bipartisan support...three of the four liberal justices joined in this stay.
1
Conservative muscle flexing. Enjoy it while it lasts.
2
@Aaron
Let's see...through 2024, and then we will put up Dan Crenshaw/Nikki Haley. Or Nikki Haley/Dan Crenshaw. Either way works. None of this elections dems can beat them. Who else is in the bullpen?
9
@bored critic But it looks like Biden is a shoe-in against Trump. So that changes everything you've said.
@Bob R
The guy has trouble stringing a sentence together. That’s the best the Dems can come up with?
If previous presidents had all paid more attention to enforcing immigration laws, and had long ago enacted serious immigration reform, eliminating loopholes and making it fair, we would not be in this situation, with almost a million Central Americans seeking to move to the US, illegally. The past presidents should have also focused on serious economic aid, not band aids, to help Central American countries. Two other things: the E-Verify law with tough penalties for those who hire illegal workers and cutting off the remittances that flow to Central America, thus providing their GDP and giving their leaders no incentive to adopt any economic reforms or crack down on gangs. Now we have a president who is doing that, and it has become a shock to the system. I am sorry for what illegal immigrants are put themselves through, but I am glad our immigration laws and border means something again.
52
@GMT Do you know whe the immigration enforcement is so lax? It is because the vast majority of illegals come to the US for jobs. The employers, typically, Republicans, hire them at lower wages than American workers. Ask yourself why Trump and the Republicans refuse to make "E-Verify" mandatory and make it a crime to hire illegals. E-Verify is a Federal computer program employers can use to verify the a job applicant is legally in the country. Making it mandatory would mean the employers would have to pay higher wages and benefits because they could no longer hire illegals.
7
@GMT
This almost happened.
During president Obamas tenure, the republican senate produced a BIPARTISAN immigration bill.
But due to the fact thats that the house had given veto power to their small minority of conservative extremists and these folks refused to even consider to give amnesty or an easier road to citizenship to the dreamers, the house speaker refused to allow the bill to the floor.
Had it been allowed, it would have passed with bipartisan support and been signed nto law by the president.
In this respect nothing has changed. As long as republicans give veto power to this minority and we have trump as president, no immigration reform will occur.
4
If your theory is correct then why are democrats issuing drivers licenses to illegals and protecting them via sanctuary cities and states thus totally helping the republican business establishment.
22
Judge Adelman NAILED it: the SCOTUS has become a tool of the right wing:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/11/lynn-adelman-roberts-trump/
8
@John Mardinly
If this is a credible accusation then past progressive courts were a tool of the left. Perhaps the next Democrat
president will ask for a return to a 66% vote of the senate for all federal judges including SCOTUS.
14
@clarity007 Your accusation is not credible. Past more progressive courts were in service to the needs of the people while this court is in service to ideology and greed. Apples and oranges.
9
@clarity007
Yeah, like a dem president would ask for that. Thanks for the best laugh I had all day!
3
Looks like a rare case when it appears eight justices agree on something as polarizing as immigration. Either the law is clearly on the side of majority, or, it is just that the majority is realizing the current immigration regime cannot continue and fidelity to law is inconvenient.
17
Sad to see the supreme court so willing to grant a stay for a policy that obviously brakes the law.
Trump could have never pass such policy through congress, so he made it up granting himself the power to ignore laws on the books for decades.
What's to stop him from deporting American's next ? The GOP senate, the SCOTUS ?
4
@Joel
The policy actually follows the US law, international law and treaties signed among the US and other nations. It's the partisan, activist appeal court judges that seek to overturn anything trump who is violating laws.
18
Yes,Mr. Roberts, we do have a Republican court or should I say a Trump court, not that there's any difference. Why have a court at all when all their decisions are predictably inhuman.
They are the modern Dred Scott court.
7
I notice on the global Coronavirus map there are no reported cases in Mexico whereas the US has +1000. Nice of SCOTUS to be looking out for southern immigrants’ health.
4
You have to ask why they would travel north to seek refuge when traveling south to Costa Rica or Panama would be shorter and safer?
36
Not to mention that they also speak the same language.
23
@Mauricio
Would you want to live in Panama or Costa Rica?
3
@bored critic
I wouldn’t mind Costa Rica. Do you think they would allow me to enter the country illegally?
1
So, let me get the straight, the now conservative SCOTUS, agrees that violating federal and international laws is ok?
Thank you MAGA supporters, and #45. Plutocracy is alive and well in America.
5
@Suryasmiles
Of course this is fake news. International law states that migrants fleeing their country are to stay in the first safe haven to which they arrive
27
I think, based on the comments I'm seeing, there needs to be some clarification between undocumented vs. asylum seekers vs. refugee, because they are very different things.
An asylum seeker is someone seeking protection/sanctuary in a country, whose claim has not yet been decided.
A refugee is someone who's fled their home country because of a well founded fear of persecution. All refugees must have a referral in order to be considered (USA, cannot speak for other countries).
It's important to note that asylum seekers can only apply if they are persecuted based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a social group. This has created barriers for people seeking asylum based on gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation who may have very credible reason to believe they face imminent danger.
5
@Boston
And after fleeing their country they are to remain in the first save haven country they reach.
25
Clarity007, as someone who’s researched Mexico and Latin America for several years, I can tell you Mexico isn’t it.
Mexico has huge problems with corruption, attacks on the press , kidnapping and extortion, and disappearances by state or cartel groups.
We also can’t just simply export this issue to Mexico.
2
@Boston
Actually, yes we can because that is the international law. And are you seriously trying to say the Mexican govt is so much worse than the US govt? Because every dem/liberal commenter here keeps saying how corrupt, how dangerous the trump govt is. Cant have it both ways, so which one is it?
19
Lucky they.
This is fantastic. We have been plagued by these "refugees" who are really no more than economic migrants looking to take advantage of our generous entitlement programs. Most do not have ANY evidence of their refugee status, and previous to this most were welcomed in and then denied their asylum claims, but they are already in our country and do not leave. It is time we have some sensible policies around letting migrants into our country who will need to be almost entirely subsidized by our hard earned tax dollars.
47
@Mystery Lits
Sounds like word-for-word conservative talking points/hate speech gleaned from Sean Hannity or Rush.
What sources of information have you used?
Can you provide a link to a credible source to support these hateful and apparently bogus claims?
4
@Rich Huff
There is no such thing as hate speech... that is Orwellian word play to suppress topics that make the easily offended uncomfortable.
25
@Mystery Lits: Ask yourself why the Republicans refuse to pass laws that would make it a crime for the Employers to knowing hire illegals. Ask why the Republicans refuse to make the Federal employer identity check program, E-Verify mandatory?
3
Wow. Big surprise. The Trump Supreme Court is finally showing its true colors.
4
It's time for citizens of developing countries to become far more educated about what will and what won't qualify them for asylum in the United States.
12
I'm so tired of that 9th circuit, openly political activists passing as judges, and of CA obstruction of the protection of US borders. One gets an impression that the illegals in CA, innumerable that they are, are somehow tailoring the border actions there.
Also tired of that split in the Supreme C., 5:4 on the border / 'asylum seeking' questions, hardly such a touchy and ambiguous issue for the majority of people in USA.
33
If you are interested in supporting the asylum seekers mentioned in this article check out global-response.org, they are the main medical unit providing care in the encampment and are donor and volunteer dependent.
3
It's very possible that open borders and free medical care for all who enter the U.S. is not good policy for its citizens.
50
It appears that the 'judge shopping' isn't working out so well after all.
15
Mexico is a good country for Spanish speaking migrants. Not only is their native language the country's but there is universal health care.
29
Trump appointees and other products of the Federalist Society's weaponized incubators of conservative Republican judicial activism are at it again. As with the Senate under the thumb of Republican martinets, SCOTUS's GOP majority has no taste for the fundamental rights of humankind and the basic rule of American and international law. The solicitor general's so-called arguments, with their cooked-up data, are as spurious and disingenuous as John Yoo's torture memo. Those words--partly a product of the unitary executive theory that, under Bush 43, began to rot a wooden republic we thought was granite and now has brought termites and black mold to the party--caused deaths and widespread abuse of innocent people; Remain in Mexico has done the same. I hope this stay is not a harbinger of a 5-4 GOP-majority SCOTUS ruling against asylum seekers and others among the huddled masses seeking shelter from pummelings, paralysis, and high crimes in their homelands caused by our nation's grasping, callous, gargantuan hands. Those hands are all too invisible to Americans, so often happily deaf and blind to what's beyond our borders and increasingly ignorant of what goes on inside them.
6
The Supreme Court is just becoming another Trump Lackey. 
4
ah, the roberts court - Trumps poodle.
4
This is a prudent decision. The last thing the country and the world needs on the day a new pandemic is declared is to make a policy change that would encourage tens of thousands of people from Central America and elsewhere to set off for the US border again. And there's absolutely no question that this policy has disincentivized many people, the vast majority of whom aren't going to ultimately qualify for asylum, from undertaking this journey since they know they won't be able to establish themselves in the US for years while waiting for a hearing.
66
@JD
Excellent post. So true. Thank you.
2
We are told there is about 5 billion dollars available to build a wall to stop the asylum seekers from getting into the United States. I would like to suggest an alternate way to spend that money, a better way to deal with the people leaving their homes seeking a safer life, seeking opportunity.
For that same 5 billion dollars we could build 100,000 apartment units by the border with Mexico. Each apartment could house an average of 2 adults and 2 children, for a total of about 400,000 residents. There would be no need to separate families, or for huge numbers of guards, no need to spend a fortune housing people in cages. Construction jobs would come first, then more jobs as the retailers move in, a police force created, a Post Office established, restaurants opened. This new city would sustain itself, would cost the taxpayers nothing in the long run. It likely would add to the tax base eventually. A new congressional seat might even be created.
Providing the desperate with an opportunity for a new life sounds more humane than locking them up in cages. We need to ask ourselves what kind of world do we want to live in, what kind of people are we?
4
@David you're joking. right?
16
@David
Better than forcing housing on them they are now free to roam Mexico where their native language is likely the same as the country's and there is universal health care.
13
@David
That's hysterical. Thanks for the laugh I needed. And would this housing be in the US or mexico? If it's in the US you're saying we should just let everyone in. And force them to live in this new border town. Kind of like when we moved all the japanese into camps in WWII.
10
Is there anything the Trump administration can do that wouldn’t be allowed now that the Supreme Court has seemingly adopted the executive supremacy notion? Trump can rely on the Senate and the Supreme Court majority to protect and defend anything he dreams up.
9
It’s Interesting to read the relatively few comments that are critical of this decision. While the fact that there are few is encouraging in and of itself, it amazes me that the commenters that are critical are saying the Supreme Court is a rubber stamp for Trump and that democracy is at risk. This mentality suggests that the 63,000,000 of us that voted for Trump and support the actions of the Supreme Court don’t exist. Our Democracy elected Trump. Those of us in the electoral majority support his policies and decisions that are being made by the Supreme Court. The fact that you don’t is a reflection on you; not on our Democracy, our Courts or our President.
50
@William Hallelujah! Well said.
17
@William I wonder how many days it will be after Texas flips Democrat in a national contest will we stop hearing Republicans praising the electoral college or waxing on about how we are not a democracy but a constitutional republic?
I don’t actually wonder - it will happen in under 24 hours.
5
@William
I see it as more of a measure of who we are and what we value more:
The American political process or basic human decency.
1
McDonnell genius decision to deny Garland will be paying big dividends for decades to come.
Good decision by the Supreme Court of the land to reverse the liberal California judges.
17
Makes sense. The Central American asylum seekers have already escaped their home country ( I.e. they are now in Mexico) so they are safe from the domestic horrors that triggered their initial flight. Now they are yearning for something even better ( ie USA) and I don’t blame them for that, but they can wait at this point.
49
When the next Democratic is in the White House and their policies are blocked nationally by a single Trump appointed judge in Oklahoma I guarantee that the adminstration will be seeking emergency stays for SCOTUS and Sotomayor will be in favor despite her stance now.
23
So the trump lawyers argue that trump may do something worse if the court makes him angry—and now the single unified comprehensive US policy everywhere is do not make trump feel bad, he might have another temper tantrum
3
Legal or not legal has nothing to do with it. The Roberts court is every bit as much an appendage of the Republican Party as Fox News. They will never rule in any substantive way against Trump, the Republicans or corporate interests. The mission is to keep Republicans in power, deliver on their policies and enrich the party's supporters.
7
It seems that the Supreme Court of the United States has unwittingly become a Trump private acting secretary of sorts, what once displayed equality and justice and mandated to remain neutral to any political interference has now bowed down to this arrogant, dysfunctional twitter king, yes one need not accept all asylum seekers however, one cannot determine this need without first presenting themselves to the judiciary, for someone to claim that sexual assault is not torture then one need look at themselves and ask what if it were me, Judge Roberts for some reason has proven to show that he is no longer impartial when it comes to Trump's disdain to policy, where was he during the attacks on the two female justices when Trump lashed out and wanted them removed from his cases, where was he during the impeachment trial when the Republican Senators ignored decorum and were predisposed to acquittal, where is he now when women and children are vulnerable, there is no denying the fear that both the American People and the Asylum seekers face, nothing can be more crucial at this time of great difficulty than to see the Supreme Court regain it's independence, and remember why they all went into law and took an oath to protect all human life regardless of color, of culture, sexual orientation, they are not there to serve their own purpose but to be the third branch of governance who will never falter when it comes to their duty. Chief Justice Roberts need reflect on this decision
4
The Supreme Court gave no reasons for staying the appeals because it did not want to declare openly that 5 of the nine judges are under Trump’s thumb.
We don’t have a free Supreme Court. We have 5 Trump stooges.
6
If people are let into the US and detained here in detention camps, cages, and in some cases mistreated, etc. , the far left complains. If we hold them back and they wait it out in Mexico, then we hear the complaints. The far left only wants open borders, plain and simple. Having worked in immigration matters for many years, mainly sending third country persons to a third country, almost all places have strict rules. Rape and hostile neighborhood violence is not reason enough for asylum. Otherwise thousands of our own people would have been claiming asylum in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. for 40 years. Having personally lived with asylum seekers from an actual real war, there is a difference.
Most tell you when interviewed on TV, that very dire and depressing economics drives this train.
54
@bart
Does it make you feel good making this judgement about the multitudes of downtrodden and abused from the comfort of your comfortable sofa here in America?
This proves that they don't call it the Trump Court for no good reason.
4
That this Court’s extreme conservative majority would not even bother to respond at all, even in a single sentence, to the appeals court finding of “extreme and irreversible harm” to these thousands of asylum seekers caused by this Administration’s outlaw program, violating both federal and international law, evinces that Roberts et al themselves care not a wit for the threatened lives of these human beings. Some people are inherently worth more than others according to their Trumpian calculus.
5
Another sensible ruling by the SC, follow the law not emotion.
38
Once again, the “Supreme Leader’s Court“ does what it has been commanded.
Trump’s word is the new law.
5
Just think, if immigrants had to wait in Germany en route to France to wait for their immigration hearing, I wonder how Germans would react. Probably the same way Mexicans are reacting. They don't want immigrants detained in Mexico. Mexicans are bearing the brunt of Trump's immigration policy, and it's not a pretty sight.
3
@muslit Maybe Mexico should close its southern border? That would be a solution for their country to decide it has NOTHING to do with the U.S.
21
@muslit
We don’t want them detained here, either.
With the threat of the coronavirus, refugee camps present a clear public health threat. It is imperative that the United States do everything we can to quickly accept and assimilate refugees before these camps become a hotbed of the virus and threaten us all. The Trump administration policy is inhumane and has potential negative consequences for the entire world.
2
The Trump administration’s priorities on full display, stating that “...protecting against national-security threats, detecting and confiscating illicit materials, and ensuring efficient trade and travel.” is more important than the lives of actual people. These are ASYLUM SEEKERS. Not criminals. Women and children fleeing violence. But stopping and checking people for illegal drugs is more important? You can’t stop the flow of drugs into the US. Duh. What a horrible misappropriation of resources. Greed Over People (GOP) indeed.
3
Thank you Supreme Court Justices. Thank you.
31
A Bernie Chavez President and a SCOTUS populated with 9 Sotomayor clones will put an end to all the unreasonable limitations faced by tens (hundreds?) of millions of legitimate asylum seekers.
Welcome in, the safety net is ready for you!
6
Just take down the statue of liberty, it no longer applies to this country.
5
@Eero Yep, that type of immigration is over. It would be more applicable if we did away with the welfare state; like when those immigrants came across the ocean to arrive and have to make it on their own. We can not have a welfare/nanny state AND high levels of immigration. Those two MUST be mutually exclusive. Only then can we put the Statue of Liberty up again.
10
@Eero
I do wish that beautiful statue, installed many years before the poem was written, would not be connected to the verse for purposes of an immigration argument.
3
@Eero : look up the history of the Statue.
She was a gift from FRANCE to celebrate the end of the Civil War and END OF SLAVERY.
Look at her feet -- she is trampled on broken chains -- the chains of slavery broken.
She never had the slightest thing to do with immigration -- let alone ILLEGAL immigration.
The problem is the poem -- which was added many years AFTER the Statue itself. It is on the BASE, not on the Statue herself.
I personally will contribute $100 to fund to have that lousy poem sandblasted off the base of Lady Liberty.
SHE DOES NOT STAND FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!
Never did -- never will!
1
The USA is responsible for Central America. We own it. The sooner we accept this fact the sooner we can get on with helping them fix their situation. The US should pivot all of its immigration and foreign aid resources to rehabilitating and assisting the people of the Northern Triangle.
America contributed to the mess throughout the decades right up to Obama and Clinton when they supported the 2009 coup in Honduras. We have supported overthrows of popularly elected presidents, backing strongmen and buying the illicit drugs/stupid drug war that fuels the insipid gang problem.
To be fair, the political and societal behaviors of these places are fully dysfunctional. They are racist societies, anti-indigenous, women hating societies where corruption from their horrible elites wealthy and upper classes sets the tone.
The migrants are going to keep coming. Better to figure out the cost and focus on integration.
2
A disgraceful shameful morally bankrupt violation of decency and of laws in the United States --and of course, as such, given this is a puppet court with a rubber stamp, unsigned.
If the court is going to affect forever and for good the lives of people, which might very well die, contravening a well thought out and many pages documented argument of an appeals court based on precedent, vs. hearing the case first, they should at least have the courage (sorry too much to ask) to explain themselves.
But let this court sink in the miasma of Trump as at the end of the day it has nothing more than decency as a source of legitimacy. And this is, stolen seat and all, an illegitimate cabal of white radical conservatives.
1
Biden needs to get immediately tack to the right in immigration. Make it clear he is against illegal immigration and supports ICE and a secure border
If he listens to liberal Twitter and the woke crowd he could very well lose the election on this one issue and stick us with another four years of Trump
15
Can the NY Times please explain how Asylum Laws work.
Is it the case that if you enter Mexico first and then seek
Asylum in the US that you must have applied first in Mexico.
Is there anything preventing the US from sending the
Asylum Seekers to Canada or to Spain, both of which are
in need of new citizens ?
10
Soon to come a SCOTUS decision 5 to 4 voiding the election of Biden as president as it offends Trump and his family.
3
No other country in the world has a no penalty catch and release policy for law breaking illegal aliens.
As a minimum anyone breaking the law needs to be permanently barred from entering the country.
41
It is absolutely appalling to read some of the comments on this article. How dare you talk about humans as burdens? Unless you're native American, your ancestors likely came here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. How quickly we forget that we were all once new immigrants. Disgusting.
4
@ Diana - That would be fine if we didn’t have to pay for the asylum seekers. And yet we do. With tax dollars and other indirect costs that I generate with my labor. During hours that I don’t get to spend with my kids. See why I object and why this has nothing to do with who was where first?
9
@Diana : we cannot continue the policies of the 1800s into the 2000s.
It is simply not possible, Diana. The WORLD population has increased 10-12 times in that period of years!
You wouldn't ask us to practice 1800s medicine or education or women's rights -- would you?
So why do we have to feel obligated to have the immigration policies of 1876?
1
The Suprême Court is nothing but a Republican Party auxiliary.
4
It does not seem reasonable that the US must accept asylum seekers first, and then determine, in perhaps months or years, the validity of each claim. Thousands are claiming asylum and no one can tell for certainty whether the claim is legitimate. It is not 10 or 20 people seeking asylum in the Embassy, it is 10,000-30,000 people and thousands more will come if we must take them in to the US first. How can anyone expect us to care for those kinds of numbers of people? Why have immigration laws at all if all one needs to be is an asylum seeker? It is unfortunate and necessary that genuine asylum seekers may suffer because thousands that don't need asylum use that tactic simply as a means of entry.
62
@dudley thompson it doesn't seem reasonable that my ancestors got here with no one stopping them, but today the descendants of the people who used to live here have to fight for the right.
Immigration restrictions are all immoral. I have heard no argument, other than racism, for limiting who gets to love and work in the United States.
2
@dudley thompson There is a system in place to assess whether or not asylum seekers have a "credible fear of persecution." Trained AOs (asylum officers) apply the law. Those who get a negative CF finding are processed quickly with limited rights. They're usually back out of the US in a short time.
1
@dudley thompson - Greece has learned that lesson as well. I read an account recently by a fellow who visited the Moira refugee camp on Lesbos as some form of journalist. He recounted the story of an Afghan refugee who had taught law in Afghanistan and had started a library in the camp. Something along the lines of inspiring hope in a destitute place. The Afghan refugee (and his family) were denied asylum. The appeal was also denied. The journalist wrote he got a facebook message from the Afghan (they planned to stay in touch), saying he had made it to the mainland and was living in a squat with his family. He went on to explain he was afraid of being deported. Rejected asylum seekers don't necessarily play by the rules. I wondered how he had managed to make it to the Greek mainland without papers?
5
Maybe 3 percent of asylees will qualify for relief. Encourage understanding of the law and perhaps the remaining 97 percent will spend their energy and treasure on realistic solutions to their private horrors and not on journeying to a mirage. To do otherwise is cruel and amounts to selling a fake cure.
65
The United States is obliged to recognize valid claims for asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Asylum has two basic requirements. First, asylum applicants must establish that they fear persecution from the government in their home country. Second, applicants must prove that they would be persecuted on account of at least one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.
This is the law of the land that the DOJ and the Supreme Court should be upholding. In the present Trumpian climate, are they?
23
I feel very sorry for these asylum seekers; their situation is poor, and they deserve sympathy. So do many, probably most, of their fellow country men and women back home.
The world has 8 billion people, and many of them would like to immigrate here. The root problem is world wide overpopulation. We cannot accommodate even a small fraction of those who wish to come.
Most asylum seekers simply do not quality as refugees, under the intent of the law. They should not be allowed to enter, because that will encourage more. Nor should we encourage illegal immigrants to cross porous borders.
We need a rational immigration policy, that will allow us to accept as many legal immigrants as we reasonably can. We are a country of legal immigrants. This will require a bipartisan effort by Congress.
Admitting illegal immigrants, while those who strive to enter our country through legal means remain at home, is bad policy.
And individual Federal judges should not be allowed to issue national injunctions except in absolutely extraordinary circumstances.
68
@Alex I wish people would stop using the terms refugee and immigrant as synonyms.
5
This decision is no different to the treaty position of the European Union. An asylum seeker must apply for asylum in the first safe jurisdiction they come to. They cannot pick the country they want to be in. In this case to maintain that Mexico is not safe for an asylum seeker is to accept that any Mexican applying for asylum in the US must be taken in, as Mexico itself is not safe.
74
Within the European Union. Not just any old "first country of entry". They must apply for asylum in the first EUROPEAN UNION country they enter.
North America has no such union or similar common market. (Trade agreements are not relevant to this discussion).
4
@Dubliner There are asylum seekers for whom Mexico is safe and others for whom it is not safe. One big problem is that immigration judges are ignoring this fact and forcing many into unsafe circumstances.
1
I think you’ll find that the EU is paying Turkey to house migrants at the moment. It is not letting them wander over the (for example) Greek border at will so that they can claim asylum. No country can accept that migrants in a safe third country can choose to move on elsewhere and apply for asylum.
8
There is only one question to answer. Can the USA repair the damage of what America calls conservatism and we know is simply as anti evolution and burying one's head in the sand. Carter understood but America elected an amoral script reader.The world has changed and evolved for forty years. Can America saddled with a Senate controlled by Mississippi and its peers catch up with 40 years of unprecedented change?
10
Obviously,a minority opinion.
4
@William
When I left Chicago I never imagined myself returning home. I thought retirement in Dothan more likely. It is not often I share majority opinions but my Earth is 4.5 billion years old and I returned to a place where everyone believes the evidence.
2
Good. The last thing this country needs right now is tens of thousands of people of unknown health status rushing the border overwhelming our healthcare system.
And that's just the start.
73
@CNNNNC-The last thing this country needs right now is tens of thousands of people including children and even infants held in for-profit detention centers on U.S. soil--and subjected to cruelty and starvation. Yes, this is happening in our names.
This case illustrates the evil.of a political judiciary. The reasoning and policy underlying this ruling may make sense but who knows. Once we could trust that the Justices were in facts a political and issued opinions based on sound law and a realistic interpretation of the constitution.Alas those days are gone, instead we must live with reality that our Supreme Court is filled with folks who have wobble ethics and beleive that their jobs are to advance political agenda
The results of any case before he court is predicable.Just check the president's tweets..
16
“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases..."
A necessity, given the obvious political activism of certain Circuit Courts (eg, San Francisco) that took upon themselves to shape immigration policy.
“Extreme and irreversible harm” is an evocative phrase, as is "children in cages"... calculated to circumvent the very real need to secure and protect the border, and maintain a controlled, common sense immigration policy that is not violated as a matter of routine.
45
Perfectly sensible ruling, perfectly sensible policy.
164
@Mkm Sadism as social policy isn't perfect or sensible.
8
@Mkm perfectly evil. Cruelty as policy is evil, and all of our myths are clear as to the consequences when a.nation becomes evil.
5
@Mkm Trump's grandfather would not have been allowed into the US with that sort of a program. He was unskilled labor. Look up his record in the Ellis Island landing records. As far as I'm concerned you are the pot calling the kettle black.
6
How does America benefit from accepting these 'asylum seekers'? I wish someone would explain the benefits for accepting these people.
I will explain what the results have been for accepting the thousands of 'asylum seekers' .
The result of accepting 'asylum seekers' are higher rents and lower wages for middle class and lower class Americans.
108
@Frank Frank, how did your ancestors get here. The most likely answer is seeking asylum. We are a nation made up of refugees who did not want to live somewhere else for a variety of reasons. So unless you are a Native American, you likely have nothing to really say on this matter. Certainly Trump's grandfather came here running from military conscription and Stephen Miller's grandparents were running from the Pogroms in Russia.
Not sure where you are coming up with higher rents, these immigrants do not generally take living quarters in area most Americans want to live.
7
How would it hurt? Think about how this country's advancement might have stagnated had it barred immigrants years ago...they didn't enter 'with papers' either.
5
@Frank They have cut your lawn or your neighbor’s lawn, they have delivered furniture to you or your neighbors, they more than likely packed the last chicken you or your neighbor ate, cleaned your car or your neighbor’s car, picked the last bushel you or your neighbor ate, pick the components of the last salad you or your neighbor ate, drove that last Uber you or your neighbor used and so forth. All jobs supposed American labor was available to fill but chose not to because they couldn’t afford the low wages those business would pay. So, the vacuum got filled. There’s more greed involved in high rent than asylum seekers. Political boilerplate is never good grist for comment.
4
Doesn't it make sense for all Central Americans seeking asylum to seek refuge in Mexico? They traversed through multiple countries to escape violence, and Mexico is the first safe country they encountered.
In Europe to avoid abuses, the law requires that asylum seekers have their asylum claim registered in the first country they arrive in, and that the decision of the first EU country they apply in, is the final decision in all EU countries.
Also, Mexico is linguistically and culturally closer to Central Americans.
126
@Albela Shaitan If you took the time to read the article these immigrants are not safe in Mexico and are likely to be severely decimated in the wake of the coronavirus epidemic. Deaths of suffering on top of the suffering currently being experienced as noted in the article.
No, Mexico can be extremely dangerous for vulnerable populations and those fleeing gang violence. As there article mentions, the state department cited multiple instances of disappearances and kidnappings at the camps.
This is good news. The vast majority of these asylum seekers won't qualify to receive it. There is no reason for them to embed themselves within our country knowing full well that they will be required to leave.
117
I don't think SCOTUS is nearly as non-partisan as they seem. John Roberts proved himself to be a Trumpist during impeachment (and since). We know Kavanaugh and Gorsuch can't be trusted. Kennedy seems to have a thing for Trump as well sometimes.
If the administration orders the election to be delayed due to the coronavirus, and if SCOTUS upholds that order, it's all over. Don't trust them.
8
@Andrew Roberts
Kennedy?
3
@Andrew Roberts: Kennedy is no longer an active member of the SCOTUS. “Rumor has it” that he retired to allow Trump to nominate Kavanaugh.
2
@Andrew Roberts
You really think the Coronavirus will still that
common come November ?
1
The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers are never given asylum. Releasing them into the interior of the country so they could disappear into the scofflaw ecosystem never made any sense. Remain in Mexico is the logical policy and thankfully the SCOTUS views it as lawful.
146
@Kurfco The US interference and regime change in South America, we broke the systems, has been largely the reason for the rise in dangerous conditions forcing many to flee. We broke it and didn't fix it. We need to let the brown immigrants in just as freely as the white immigrants
like to see data on how many emergency rulings Trump admin has requested and won compared to presidents admins back to Carter admin....I am just amazed at how many federal
court rulings have been overturned by this Supreme Court; must be using a different Constitution than I grew up with
19
@James T ONeill - interesting question. However, you would also have to look at how many the the prior administration's had every action the took litigated.
9
@James T ONeill I am convinced that Judge Roberts GOP handlers call him and tell him what to do. And then he does it.
2
the idea that lifting MPP would cause chaos at the border and irreparable harm to our country is just untruthful. where do these guys dream this stuff up? I work directly with MPP victims. they would all make great Americans.
the solution to the problem is to replace trump and his solicitor general. hopefully, lifting MPP by president Biden or someone else with a sense of decency, in a signing order this january will help undo the de facto genocide that MPP is.
18
@peter And these people entering the country can support themselves and their families without taxpayer assistance? That is what ultimately matters.
37
“The Supreme Court’s order was brief and unsigned, and it gave no reasons”
So much respect for dumping the reasoning of the “lower” courts, eh?
20
This isn’t difficult. Injunctions require a demonstration of “irreparable harm”. Being excluded from the country pending a determination of whether you’re entitled to enter is not “irreparable harm”; it’s the default setting for foreigners.
On the merits, effectively 0% of all folks from Central America can make a legitimate claim for asylum, as the standard requires that one be subject to official persecution based on race, politics, etc., and not one CA country so engages. The “refugees” are always said to be “fleeing poverty and violence” (the emphasis on the former). But garden variety criminal violence is not a rationale for seeking asylum. If you’re being plagued by crime in one part of Honduras, move to another part. Or better yet, fight. (SOMEONE has to do it)
Put simply, it is not our problem and none of our concern. It is most certainly not a rationale to admit millions of people who will cost the taxpayers/wage earners hundreds of billions.
If your neighborhood in CA is a hotbed of crime, it’s your kids who are the problem. And it’s your obligation to do something about it. Better that you should fight than that American soldiers or taxpayers be forced to deal with it.
89
@Michael Well said!
7
@Edward Allen
Name callers, like our President, do not deserve an audience.
1
Elections matter. We need to defeat Trump in 2020.
We may not be able to dent the 5 to 4 conservative majority, but at least we won't let it become 6 to 3 when RGB retires.
Vote for Joe Biden, bring decency and honor back to the Whitehouse. And stop the march toward an ultra conservative Supreme Court.
10
@thetruthfirst Decent and honorable would mean standing up for the best interests of the working classes who elect you.
Any elected official who opens the floodgates to the 'asylum seekers' is doing no such thing.
32
No matter how you slice it bringing in more poor, illiterate non-English speaking people to the US is nothing but a burden on the taxpayer. I know that we historically have been able to bring in millions of people in need of help but I feel like we’re reaching the point where we can say we have enough people in need already here.
I welcome this decision. I would rather we help these people in their countries or set up agreements with other countries rather than continuing to bring in 100,000 needy people a month. If people would look at this situation objectively they would see that adding more people to this country is terrible for our environment, job market, wages, etc...
139
@A.B More migrants is more people buying things. Don't buy into the supply-side economic delusion.
2
@A.B
"No matter how you slice it bringing in more poor, illiterate non-English speaking people to the US is nothing but a burden on the taxpayer"
You just described 90% of all immigrants to the US since 1776. My Grandparents on both sides (Germany, Japan) didn't speak one word of English when they came here over 100 years ago. They worked at menial labor jobs in farming, oil drilling and coal mining, saved their money, raised families, and now have 3 doctors, 5 pharmacists, a veterinarian and a dentist for grandkids.
There is absolutely nothing special about my family - millions of others have done the same.
4
@Mark
All the jobs you describe - farming, oil drilling, and coal mining - are on their way out.
12
This is one of the most sensible solutions possible.
Kudos to the SCOTUS.
133
Calling this court "Supreme" seems like a misnomer, maybe the "subordinate (to Trump), subpar" court would be more appropriate these days.
51
Forcing refugees the stay in squalid camps in foreign countries on our border is about as unamerican as it gets. The Supreme Court of the United States rules against American values today.
I also want to point out that Trump is wrong to suggest that this is a "trump case." Justice Sotomayor has every right to rule on cases
even when she disagrees with our dear leader.
61
@Edward Allen
They are economic migrants; roughly 90% of the 'asylum requests' are false and subsequently denied.
26
@tbandc,
Adding an adjective doesn't change their life, experience, and humanity, but it does demonstrate your lack of empathy. Adding false and made up statistics doesn't help your case either.
There is zero reason to keep anyone willing to work and contribute to society out, except racism and xenophobia.
Humans ancient myths are about the harm that comes to Nations that reject strangers in their time of need. Remember the myth of Sodom, and what happen to those cruel people. Are we better?
2
@tbandc
Speaking as a non-Trumper who is also against Dems' de facto open border policy: in fact, even Trump's (former) Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen put the figure at 80%, and I've seen credible evidence-based arguments that it's closer to 75%.
Also, many people tell the truth and are denied.
8
Could we expect anything else? This is the Trump rubber stamp court.
38
@hjw418
So RBG, who voted with the majority, is part of what you term "the Trump rubber stamp court"?
11
The coronavirus probably has a lot to do with this decision. If that is the case, it is a good decision for the moment but needs to be revisited when the virus is contained and/or eradicated.
8
@rmward1 yes definitely, it can keep asylum seekers away from the virus, which is rampant here and not over there.
1
Doesn't the US now have enough problems without these "asylum seekers," who mostly are economic refugees?
157
@RP Have you thought of who's going to replace the immigrant work force? I didn't think so.
7
@muslit
American citizens will replace the immigrant workforce. It is a lie that immigrants do work Americans refuse to do. Employers refuse to hire Americans, choosing instead to hire illegal aliens on the cheap and sometimes under the table. The recent NYT articles on the illegal alien takeover of construction jobs in DC and illegal aliens holding all of the chicken processing plant jobs in MS prior to the ICE raids demonstrate the facts.
16
@muslit
Do you understand that actual progressives don't defend exploitation wages? I...you know.
9
Trump telling Justices to recuse themselves is like the fox telling chickens to wait quietly while he eats the next in line.
23
@John This would create an interesting precedent.
Anytime a justice disagrees with a sitting president's decision they recuse themselves.This would kind of eliminate the purpose of the court as a check on the presidency, no?
Just more of trump's inane ramblings.
Notice that only Sotomayor dissented which means the decision was otherwise 8-1.
83
Justice Sotomayor was not the lone dissenter in this case or the "wealth test" case they referenced where she wrote the dissenting opinion. The guy in the White House won't or can't read, please don't follow his example
16
Read the article, it was a 5-4 decision. SC Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the minority.
23
@Derek Good example of the way Liptak's article is designed to deceive. At the end he talks about other 5-4 decisions leaving the impression that this decision was also 5-4 but it wasn't. As I said, only Sotomayor is listed in the order as having dissented.
13
Follow the law.
41
Tell that to your president.
@Derek ... self declared asylum seekers and refugees can simply enter the country st will?
11
The Refugees and asylum seekers are following the law. The Trump Administration keeps changing the rules and his toadies on the SCOTUS support his will. The US does not have an independent court.
15