• On Wednesday, the Supreme Court allowed Trump administration to enforce a rule that will limit the asylum applications by immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. Of the nine judges on the court, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were not in favor of the rule.
• The rule requires immigrants, who want asylum, to first seek safe haven in the third country through which they traveled to the US. This rule first came into effect in July, but was immediately blocked.
• Curbing migration levels has been a crucial goal of Trump’s presidency and 2020 re-election bid. “BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.
• American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the rule in federal court argue that it is in violation of the U.S. immigration law. The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer said it is a temporary step and that “we're hopeful we'll prevail at the end of the day.”
• On Thursday, Mexico said that it did not agree with the ruling. The rule will primarily affect the non-Mexican migrants, who try to enter the US via the US southern border.
We were once a country that set an example for others. Now we have become a disgrace. We used to take the high road, now we cut corners and leave others out to dry. Our communities are rich in diversity and that is a pillar of American life. Why are we now forcing people to first seek asylum in another country before coming here? And why didn’t Trump take the proper approach of going through Congress, presenting legislation, and adhering to the way in which such policies should be implemented?
Tyranny flourishes in moral weakness, and the more Trump pushes our thresholds, the more exhausted we become. We’re powerless, he’s made that much clear. But we are not powerless in 2020, and we get to choose whether or not we want to keep giving this man free reign of an extraordinary country that deserves a leader that understands what America stands for. The inhumane crisis at the border is being solved with all kinds of Draconian tactics, and here’s another one to stack on top of the pile.
We’re in a new system now. Lower courts mean nothing, Trump just abuses loopholes in the law. Calling anything an “emergency” opens up all sorts of statutes for him to work with. But we’re all familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf. If Trump creates an “emergency” every time he doesn’t get his way, an “emergency” just becomes a synonym for “compliance”.
The Supreme Court’s decision, in essence, waives the legal process that has been ongoing in lower courts. Seemingly, then, doing it by the book doesn’t mean much when a heavier hammer can be thrown down at any moment. Asylum seekers may now only enter after having tried to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. As though the dangerous journey to the border isn’t violent and menacing enough, now there is no more hoping for the desired destination: the land of the free. It’s interesting, too, that this means they’d likely have to seek asylum in Mexico first—which can be argued “safe” on a bureaucratic scale. But Mexicans are fleeing to our border in droves as well, which seems to signal that the country leaves much to be desired. It is human nature to constantly chase something better, to build up a life, and to do whatever it takes to achieve that. Cutting these people off from the opportunity that lies in the US is saddening.
First, Trump circumvents Congress and redistributed military funds towards the wall. Second, Trump circumvents the legal process and gets his way. The Supreme Court is no longer the separate check on power it used to be. It has reverted into a rubber stamp that approves the president’s whims. This policy disproportionately affects asylum seekers coming from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. That’s an oddly specific set of countries whose citizens Trump, apparently, would rather not see in our country. It’s incredible to see the sitting president wield his power without concern for the democratic process.
Whenever some kind of immigration decision is made, people get a little foggy about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It is actually rather fascinating to see people up in arms over protecting individuals who are breaking the law. We have legal paths towards immigration. You know what is making the process less efficient for those trying to do it the right way? The influx of illegal immigrants. It just isn’t stopping.
This is a good decision that many other nations already have implemented. This decision affects asylum seekers. There is nothing wrong with wanting to immigrate for economic opportunity, even if you’re from the countries that are in Central America that are mostly affected by this policy. Now, there’s just a new caveat: you should do it the right way. Is that too much to ask? If you are in imminent danger, you should first seek asylum in the first safe country you enter. This makes total sense.
If we don’t show that we have a backbone, there’s no stopping anyone from just deciding that the U.S. is up for grabs. That’s not okay. That shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. It’s a matter of law, civil society, and protecting our communities. If you take a look at European countries who have had immigration crises, they have dealt with it in the same way—if not harsher! Trump gets my full support on this decision. It’s one that will help to alleviate the enormous burden that our border is facing, and perhaps those seeking legal entry will have a more streamlined process.
Let’s put our best people to work to help those who are going through the legal motions, filling out paperwork, and setting their best foot forward to be a part of our country. Those people, legal immigrants, are and will be welcomed with open arms by communities across our country. They will have the opportunity to create a life here in the US. You’ve just got to do it the right way. That’s a no-brainer.
Liberals often point to the European Union as an exemplar of society. Whether it be universal health care policies, paid parental leave, or public transit systems; whenever something isn’t perceived as quite right inside the U.S., the EU does it better--right? So how about immigration, then? The EU has an identical policy, that has been in place for a while. It’s a consensus. A strategy that works. It makes sense. There is no country in the developed world that has 1. an open border (a ludicrous proposition) 2) allows economic refugees immigration permission/asylum. So why should we? Why are people blind to what it means to loosen up immigration laws, or "open up" the border. Whatever kind of surrealism they’re living in is far removed from reality. This utopian ideal negates everything we already know about humans. We have rules set in place in all aspects of our lives, because we’re not inherently going to live in a civil society. It has to be created, maintained, and expanded over time. Trump’s approach is the right one. He is protecting the common good.
People up in arms over this development don’t understand the cost, consequence, and urgency of immigration matters. I repeat: the very liberal EU nations are on the same page about this. If those countries all had lax immigration policies, it would be disastrous.
The Supreme Court did the right thing. The rule of law is on their side. Anyone who is taken by surprise, clearly does not understand that the Constitution grants the President broad authority over immigration.