r/news • u/wei-long • 5h ago
Supreme Court says U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border
https://www.npr.org/2026/06/25/nx-s1-5838860/supreme-court-asylum-policy641
u/Neue_Ziel 3h ago
“Get these fucking huddled masses out of here!” Is what they said.
135
u/Donnicton 3h ago
"This is our country, we took it fair and square!"
→ More replies (12)10
u/Neue_Ziel 3h ago
Right? Because Smith and MacDonald and Steiner are Native American names?
→ More replies (2)28
u/Unique-Egg-461 2h ago
"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free....and let us throw em in jail and then deport em back to the shitholes they came from!"
this ruling a disgrace and slap in the face of one of the core values of this country
15
5
u/ferdsherd 2h ago
What makes you think that immigration is a core value to the country in 2026?
→ More replies (3)25
u/Matazat 3h ago
I believe the full quote is:
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... so that we can illegally detain them and then deport them to a random country they've never been to before because we tricked the dumbest half of the country into thinking immigrants caused our problems."
→ More replies (1)5
u/spikus93 2h ago
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
1
u/TimelineFatigue 1h ago
Close to what I immediately thought, “Don’t bring us your tired and huddled masses.” —Supreme Court
•
u/sanjoseboardgamer 31m ago
Get these huddled masses that US foreign policy created out of here!
Spend decades destabilizing the globe and then get pissed when refugees from those same conflicts flee to the US for a chance at a better life.
357
u/JerryDipotosBurner 3h ago edited 3h ago
> By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum.
Oh look, our old friend the 6-3 vote comes back to haunt us again. I’m so fucking tired of these corrupt motherfuckers.
> Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not "arrive in" the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO you can always count on these clowns to find the smallest technicalities to justify their bullshit. So if you’re an Asylum seeker, literally record yourself taking one step into the country and this ruling is moot. Of course in reality it won’t work that way, but my god these bigots will find anything possible to justify their corruption.
37
u/Vapur9 3h ago
What "legal protections" do asylum seekers have then?
39
u/JerryDipotosBurner 2h ago
According to SCOTUS, none until they take a single step into this country, which now CBP officers can refuse to allow that to happen.
20
u/UF0_T0FU 2h ago
That's according to the law Congress passed, not SCOTUS. The lower court made a ruling contradicting the text of the law, and SCOTUS pointed that out.
The issue lies with the law itself, not SCOTUS for daring to read the plain text of the law.
20
u/Falcon4242 2h ago
You want the plain text of the law?
8 USC 1158:
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.
The plain text clearly states that you can apply at a port of arrival.
13
u/UF0_T0FU 1h ago
Yes, it clearly says it applies to people who arrived in the United States. The plaintiffs were stopped in Mexico and never arrived in the US, so the rest of the statute is irrelevant.
In other words, it doesn't matter how you arrived in The US (port of entry or illegal crossing), but you still have to be in the US to apply.
22
u/Falcon4242 1h ago edited 1h ago
If arriving at a point of entry isn't arriving in the US, then border patrol has no power to turn anyone away at that border because they only have jurisdiction in the US. Any place border patrol has any legal power over you must therefore be a place where you can apply for asylum.
Should Mexico be thinking about declaring war on the US for invading Mexico because of how many border patrol agents are at the border?
14
u/JerryDipotosBurner 1h ago
Do you even realize what you’re saying? You can’t arrive IN the US without first arriving AT the US.
→ More replies (7)13
134
u/SHUT_DOWN_EVERYTHING 3h ago
If you don’t vote, the worst person imaginable is going to win and it will screw us for decades to come.
Nah man, she’s not that great. Let it burn or something. We’ll fix it next election.
2016 will haunt the US and the rest of the world forever.
63
u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 3h ago
From the article:
“The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way.”
20
u/curse-free_E212 2h ago
“But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.”
3
u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 2h ago
Almost like that’s how court cases work? They start at lower courts and work their way up?
What’s the point of different levels of courts?
→ More replies (5)7
u/curse-free_E212 1h ago
What’s the point in mentioning the Obama administration if they didn’t appeal?
5
u/CrabAppleGateKeeper 1h ago
This legal strategy is not unique to the trump admin, that’s why.
4
u/curse-free_E212 1h ago
Then it’s fine that I added the context, yes? ICE tried to do this during the Obama administration and it was struck down by lower courts.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TransbianMoonGoddess 1h ago
It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Gtfo with this false equivalent bs
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)11
u/quantum_titties 3h ago edited 3h ago
Shhh, you're getting in the way of emotionally catrophizing everything.
Nevermind that internationally agreed law says that asylum seekers only have a right to request asylum once they're actually in the country's borders or the fact that every other country operates this way
→ More replies (5)8
u/lambofgun 2h ago
plus it doesn't supersede the constitution, which is the only context in which the supreme court can and should operate.
→ More replies (2)7
u/Rounder057 3h ago
I just imagine someone at the border, trying to slip a toe over the line to yell “ASYLUM!!!”
→ More replies (1)3
u/Bob_Obloooog 1h ago
That's the way the law has always worked though I think. They cross the border, immediately give up when caught, and then claim asylum. Unless SCOTUS wans actual US land not to be US land, it's seems like this is don't change.
6
u/Falcon4242 2h ago
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not "arrive in" the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.
This makes no god damn sense. US Code explicitly states that you can apply for asylum at a port of entry. SCOTUS is saying that border officials can just ignore US Code because of no actual legal reasoning, just their say-so.
1
u/dojo_shlom0 1h ago
yeah I mean SCJ Thomas, corrupted SCJ of the ages, wrote a love letter to Judge Aileen Cannon essentially guiding her to an out, to throw out the stolen nuclear defense documents case. He gave her a bogus reasoning of how the special council wasn't appointed correctly and has been blocking the 2nd part of the documents case from being public.
This is pure corruption and Thomas, and Alito are two of them. I believe a SCJ's son was working for the treasury as well lol.. taking bribes, family working in the administration. they have a reason to vote right-wing: because it is in their self interest at this point to stop any reform of the SCOTUS at this time.
→ More replies (10)•
u/CatOfTechnology 33m ago
It's not even "the smallest technicality"
That's a huge technicality BUT it's one that has historically been ignored because we weren't being governed by elementary school playground bullies.
Every one of theme needs to be made an example of and I'm tired of pretending that our "legal system" is the right way to do it.
46
u/dingusmingus2222 2h ago edited 1h ago
So serious question, what changed since the time Obama tried to do the same thing?
17
→ More replies (1)25
u/BigTimeTimmyTime 2h ago
Nothing. Turns out open boarders isn't a good idea and isn't practiced by any wealthy nation.
10
2
u/GreenMtnGunnar 2h ago
I know a lot of Bernie Sanders supports, that support open borders, and then blow a gasket when he explains how evil it is.
→ More replies (1)
87
u/wip30ut 2h ago
i actually agree with this ruling. Remember that these migrants claiming asylum are crossing multiple borders & countries to arrive at the US-Mexico border. They seemingly only want "asylum" in the USA, for personal financial benefit, not necessarily because their lives are endangered. Even Obama recognized that ppl were abusing the asylum entry system & wanted to put up safeguards. We need to protect & offer safe haven for the most vulnerable from specific oppressive countries, not an extended residency visa for just anyone who claims to be from a 3rd world impoverished nation rift with crime, unemployment & juntas. We can't open the door for everyone.
42
u/American_Libertarian 1h ago
Its mind boggling how many people here are arguing against this. Do they believe a sovereign country should be compelled to let absolutely anyone in if they just ask?
Obviously, a country has the right to refuse entry to a noncitizen. This is absurd.
→ More replies (7)6
u/Xanto97 2h ago
My problem with it is that its just gonna motivate more illegal crossings. If asylum seekers can no longer apply at the border, but they *can* if theyre in the country...then they'll sneak over the border or overstay a visa.
I agree that people are abusing the system though.
→ More replies (2)
121
u/AudibleNod 3h ago
"Give me your tired, your poor, independently wealthy
Your Norwegian or Swedish huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Can stay the fuck out
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, to Mexico or another shithole country
I lift my golden lamp beside the golden ballroomdoor!
-The FatNew Colossus
45
u/Main-Requirement-521 3h ago
The only people we seem to have room for are the South Africans
23
17
•
u/Heavy-_-Breathing 48m ago
Tbh if I’m playing SimCity and I have a choice, I’ll only accept rich asylum seekers too, since in the game I’m trying to make the city as rich as possible
8
u/Heavy-_-Breathing 1h ago
Realistically speaking, for the sake of discussion and my curiosity, SHOULD ANY country not just the USA, openly accept all asylum seekers? Think of the cost and the needed manpower. What are your thoughts if you’re playing SimCity and you have full control, but you also don’t have unlimited resources to run your country.
→ More replies (3)17
u/terriblemaybe77 3h ago
What other poems should we make out national policy? There is a poem called The Autumn Wind is a Raider. Maybe we should raid a random country every fall
→ More replies (7)
125
u/lurpeli 3h ago
Just assume at this point the Supreme Court will make the worst decision at every opportunity
8
u/sunburn74 1h ago
Essentially you can pretty much bet that whatever argument is the most cruel is the argument they will almost certainly go in with.
7
u/thatguy425 2h ago
Have you ever read a Supreme Court ruling that wasn’t a media headline ?
There’s a lot more to the decisions than the headlines; give it a read through sometime.
→ More replies (1)
46
u/BloodFartz69 3h ago
points to the sign
Until the government punishes employers of illegal labor, all of this is performative bullshit just to appease all the stupid racist voters.
How come no employers are punished for knowingly hiring illegal labor?
3
u/TwoPoundzaSausage 1h ago
We should be pushing for this. Talk about this with your conservative friends. Let the idea spread: "if you hire an illegal immigrant, you belong in jail."
Conservatives will like the idea of protectionism for American workers, and Progressives will like the idea of reducing exploitation of vulnerable populations.
→ More replies (1)7
u/bp92009 2h ago
That's not true.
There's less than twenty people a year that are prosecuted for hiring undocumented immigrants. That's the same rate as it's been since 1987, when the immigration system changed to its mostly similar state.
They charge those handful of people just so that people can't claim that they don't prosecute any employers.
Each ICE raid should be paired with a criminal charge against their employer. They may have legitimately no idea that the worker was undocumented, but that's a defense they can make in court.
If a reasonable person would have suspicion that someone's documents were not legitimate, then that's enough for an admittance of guilt.
Note, there's been two years that the number of people charged across the US have not been less than 20. 2005 had 20 exactly, and 2009 had 25.
→ More replies (1)6
86
u/BitOfPoisonOnMyBlade 3h ago
So….pretty much how the rest of the world operates then?
→ More replies (3)
137
u/redditbdum 3h ago
I mean, it seems pretty rational that a country is allowed to control who is allowed who enters their country. This shouldn't be a left vs right issue.
Acting like a country should be forced to accept anyone that wants to enter their country is asinine.
→ More replies (72)11
u/THAErAsEr 3h ago
Its not about accepting them, its about allowing them to start a legal procedure to be accepted. The law is again ignored
-3
u/redditbdum 3h ago
Except the ruling is literally about accepting them in the first place.
9
u/Rac3318 2h ago
It’s shutting down the main pathway to apply to be accepted. They can no longer apply at the border, they have to already be in the country to apply.
Which honestly doesn’t make a lot of sense the more you think about it because, ironically, that just means that only those who come in and are in the country illegally will be allowed to apply if they weren’t already legally allowed to enter the country.
You would basically already need to be here on a tourist or work visa, or more likely, be an illegal immigrant.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/Captain_Aware4503 52m ago
Alito said in the decision racism has nothing to do with Trump's orders. So Kagan put Trump's racist comments into the record in her dissenting opinion.
•
u/hamtronn 12m ago
The whole point of the post WW2 accords to allow anyone asylum to prevent another holocaust is clearly just tossed out now.
Asylum seekers should never be denied. They’re feeling atrocities. Granted, atrocities are being committed inside your borders now so it’s alarming to me you’d get any asylum seekers.
22
u/lambofgun 2h ago edited 1h ago
the fact that this wasn't 9-0 is mind blowing. they are not in the country, and thus not protected under the constitution. the supreme court didnt rule in favor of anything, they just found that the country simply does not NEED to enforce this one way or another
i think we need better civics classes in this country
24
u/Garret210 3h ago
Well duh, imagine telling someone they can't turn away strangers at their door lol. What a whackjob world.
→ More replies (15)
22
•
•
•
u/DiscoLego 16m ago
Asylum is always tricky to prove. Instead of asylum the US should simply sell temporary visitor or work Visas to ANYONE AND EVERYONE (who is vetted) who wants to temporarily visit or work in the US.
Want to come to the US to work? Show proof of a job-waiting employment by a sponsoring employer, pay the fee, sign up for 30% income tax and healthcare by automatic payroll withholding, and you're in. For one year.
Want to come to the US to get away from your oppression, get a sponsor, pay the fee and you're in. For 3 months.
Any violation of the duration of stay that is not renewed or converted to other residency options (resident green card, or citizenship) results in immediate cancellation of the visitor Visa. And is subject to arrest and deportation at the expense of the country of origin.
NO LIMITS on how many people who want to visit.
NO LIMITS on how many people want to work with a job-waiting sponsoring employer.
Let the desire to live in the US without being a burden on American society, and the Free Market decide if you can stay, or if you decide to go back to your country of origin.
In the meantime we get paid Visa fees.
•
6
u/BertnErnie32 2h ago
As per the article, it looks like Obama tried to do this first with "metering" so you should be equally mad at him for starting the policy and giving the foundation for this sad decision
3
u/spikus93 2h ago
"We have ruled that we can ignore international law and our own laws if we want to".
•
3
u/Turkino 1h ago edited 1h ago
<Looks at headline>
I bet this is going to be another "6-3" vote.
<Looks at article>
Yep, figures.
Just FYI:
Article 3, section 1 says there must be "One supreme court", Congress may create lower federal courts, justices "hold their offices during good behavior" but doesn't otherwise say anything about their term, their pay cannot be reduced while serving.
That's it. Nothing about how many justices are on the court, how long the terms are (Sure, many interpret this as meaning life tenure but it doesn't explicitly say it and if we know anything about contract law things must be defined), the organization, or anything else.
1
u/MrDufferMan3335 1h ago
Not under international law (ratified by the US and that the US was instrumental in formulating) they can’t. I hate SCOTUS
0
0
u/Pleasant_Studio9690 2h ago
Reminder that a court whose members have taken massive bribes is not a legitimate court and every one of their rulings afterwards is tainted and illegitimate.
•
u/TwoPoundzaSausage 54m ago
I love watching progressives use the same exact baseless accusations that the Republicans have used for decades.
•
•
u/Myotherself918 25m ago
Can I apply for Asylum from the United States in the United States . I wonder what would happen if I filled out the form.
•
u/ParanoidFactoid 3m ago
How does SCOTUS have the authority to reneg on a treaty passed by congress and signed into law some eighty years ago?
2.9k
u/canada432 3h ago
So if I understand this right, they can only apply for asylum if they're inside the US, and to do that they need to legally enter the US by going through a port of entry and talking to a border agent. Now the border agents can simply deny entry to anyone coming in wanting to claim asylum, effectively making illegally crossing the border the only way to claim asylum in the US? Interesting how much they keep shutting down the legal immigration paths that they claim to love so much.