This afternoon immigrant rights advocates gathered for a media briefing to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. The Al Otro Lado case addressed a now-defunct policy under which immigration officers at official border crossings physically blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil. The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, and that the policy does not violate federal immigration law.
This afternoon advocates discussed what the decision means for people seeking safety and broader ramifications for the rule of law in the United States.
A recording of the media briefing can be accessed here.
“The Supreme Court’s ruling in our case deals a devastating blow to the rights of people seeking asylum, to the rule of law, and to this country’s legacy as a beacon of hope for people fleeing persecution and torture,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), co-counsel in the case. “The decision adopts an interpretation of our immigration laws that defies the text of the asylum statute, and Congress’ intent in adopting it, which was to ensure that we do not return people seeking refuge to harm. It suggests that the administration can unilaterally rewrite our laws if they get in the way of its anti-immigrant agenda. Our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge.”
“This isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has gotten something wrong,” said Nicole Ramos, Director of the Border Rights Project at Al Otro Lado, plaintiff in the case. “We have not only a legal obligation under federal law and international law, but also a moral obligation to protect individuals and families that are fleeing persecution and violence, particularly when in many of these countries, they are fleeing circumstances that we, the United States, created. We are going to keep fighting alongside communities that are migrating to save their lives, because we don't have the privilege of giving up. If they still believe that their lives are worth saving, and that they deserve safety, then so do we, and it's incumbent upon us to keep fighting.”
“Since they returned to power, the Trump-Miller white nationalist administration has waged a war on our immigrant communities, trying to define who gets to be an American and who gets to experience the promise of safety and refuge. We must demand better of our country and of its leaders,” said Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03). “We can choose to recognize our shared commitment to never again turn our backs on those seeking refuge and safety. Congress needs to introduce and pass legislation that affirms our commitment to those seeking asylum. Otherwise, people will die. So many are in grave danger in this precise moment if Congress does not do its job and assert its authority.”
“In 1939, more than 900 Jewish refugees aboard the MS St. Louis sailed to Cuba, and then the United States, seeking safety from Nazi persecution,” said Naomi Steinberg, Vice President of U.S. Policy and Advocacy at HIAS, which filed an amicus brief in the Al Otro Lado case. “They were turned away two times. Ultimately, more than one-third of the passengers on that boat were killed in the Holocaust. HIAS was there. Then, when the Trump administration set up its own turnback policies, HIAS was there again, serving people who were stranded in Mexico. We know these stories intimately. The turnback of the St. Louis and the turnbacks at the U.S.-Mexico border, at their core, have one chilling thing in common, which is the denial of the right to seek safety.”
“My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen,” said Angelo Guisado, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights Senior, co-counsel in the case.
“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, co-counsel in the case. “Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families. What we need is an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats people with dignity. Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works.”
For more about the case, see the organizations’ case pages below and the partner campaign website, No Turning Back.
https://cgrs.uclawsf.edu/en/our-work/litigation/mullin-v-al-otro-lado
https://ccrjustice.org/AOL
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/litigation/aol/