Supreme Court gives two big wins to Trump's anti-immigrant agenda - National & International News -

Supreme Court gives two big wins to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda

The Supreme Court today issued two rulings siding with President Trump’s anti-immigration policies. In one case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court ruled that the administration can turn away migrants seeking to cross the US-Mexico border without allowing them to apply for asylum. In another case, Mullin v. Doe, the court ruled that the Trump administration can end temporary protected status for about 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians who have sought refuge in the US.

Haiti and Syria both have been extremely unstable and perilous for years and remain so today. In Haiti, powerful and violent gangs continue to terrorize the capital of Port-au-Prince, despite the presence of international peacekeepers and police. In Syria, ethnic violence and reprisals continue 18 months after the fall of longtime dictator Bashar al-Assad. Regardless, the administration may now deport thousands of Haitians and Syrians back to their own countries at will, likely placing many of them in mortal danger.

The one hope left for Haitians and Syrians who find their TPS revoked would be applying for asylum. Federal law grants requires that foreigners in the US be allowed to apply for asylum, but the Trump administration has tried to curb this as well. Earlier this month, the administration ordered United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to pause asylum processing for 40 countries, including Haiti and Syria. As of June 5, a federal district court has ruled this policy illegal and ordered USCIS to resume processing applications. The administration has appealed the ruling and the matter will continue churn through the courts.

Perhaps the most consequential ruling which has not yet been issued is in Trump v. Barbara, in which the administration seeks to abolish birthright citizenship for children born in the US to non-citizen parents. Based on skepticism voiced by conservative justices during oral arguments, legal commentators believe it is unlikely the court will side with the Trump administration in this case.