Asylum seekers stranded by Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy celebrate court ruling: ‘We went through horrible, heavy things’

Asylum seekers stranded by Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy celebrate court ruling: ‘We went through horrible, heavy things’ Trump administration unlawfully blocked more than 70,000 people from entering US in his first term, advocates say - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments Become an Independent member to bookmark this article Already a member? Log in A federal judge has determined that Donald Trump’s administration illegally expelled thousands of people seeking asylum on the southern side of the U.S. Mexico border, vindicating asylum seekers and others who were denied refuge under the so-called “Remain in Mexico” plan that kept them in harm’s way. The federal government violated immigrants’ rights to apply for protection and access legal counsel and a fair court hearing while denying immigration attorneys meaningful access to represent them, according to the ruling. “Today is an important day for those of us who were in [Remain in Mexico],” the lead plaintiff in the case said in a statement. “We went through horrible, heavy things, and it means a lot to finally have this recognition that what the United States government did to us was illegal.” Trump’s Migrant Protection Protocols, first implemented during his first administration in 2019, prevented immigrants from entering the U.S. while they waited for their immigration court hearings on their asylum claims, which “severely curtailed” their ability to access a fair legal process, according to Wednesday’s ruling, which was unsealed Friday. Only seven percent of people impacted by the policy were able to find legal counsel, if they were able to survive perilous conditions on the southern side of the border, where they were forced to wait for months, and could actually show up for their hearings. Many asylum seekers were trafficked, kidnapped or experienced violence while waiting for their claims to be processed, according to immigration attorneys and human rights watchdogs. Roughly 1.1 percent of asylum seekers subjected to the policy were granted asylum or other immigration removal, according to immigrants’ rights groups who represented plaintiffs in the case. Former President Joe Biden moved to end the policy, but Trump sought to revive Remain in Mexico after returning to office last year, among a series of anti-immigration policies that have significantly reduced or effectively blocked U.S.-Mexico border crossings and shut down asylum pipelines. “The Trump administration treats human beings fleeing persecution as people to punish rather than people to protect,” according to Margaret Cargioli with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, among the groups representing plaintiffs in the Remain in Mexico battle. Trump’s policy “forced human beings, including families with young children, into further danger, exposing them to violence, abuse, and exploitation while obstructing our attorneys’ ability to defend them when facing our complex immigration system,” she said. “No administration should ever be permitted to repeat these violations.” Between January 2019 and January 2021, border officials expelled more than 70,000 asylum seekers and migrants to Mexican border camps under the Remain in Mexico policy, forcing them to wait for months or years while their cases languished, according to Human Rights First. The organization recorded hundreds of cases of killings, rape, torture, kidnapping and assault against asylum seekers who could not enter the U.S. within the first two years of the program. This summer, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with another sweeping asylum policy that allows border officials to block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. if officials believe ports of entry are too overwhelmed to hear their cases. The Immigration and Nationality Act allows an “alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum. Those applicants are then referred for an interview to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution to qualify for those protections. But the high court’s conservative majority determined that an immigrant only “arrives” in the U.S. after they cross the border, and immigration law governing asylum “neither entitles an alien standing in Mexico to apply for asylum nor requires an immigration officer to inspect him,” according to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion. Alito’s “blessing” gives Trump permission to “slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands,” according to liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not,” she wrote in her dissent. Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, called the Remain in Mexico policy “a humanitarian catastrophe and a travesty of justice.” “People asking for protection should get a fair hearing and meaningful access to legal representation,” added Rosa Saavedra Vanacore, associate legal director at Innovation Law Lab. “The court agreed that Remain in Mexico took that away.” Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments