The Supreme Court will consider whether the federal government must inspect and process asylum seekers rather than turn them away to wait in Mexico.
The court is set to hear arguments March 24 on whether migrants who present themselves at a U.S. port of entry but are stopped on the Mexican side of the border are legally considered to have “arrived in the United States” and therefore have the right to seek asylum.
The plaintiffs in Noem v. Al Otro Lado argue turning away asylum-seekers violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops agrees with them.
The USCCB wrote in an amicus curiae brief: “The turnback policy is not just a flawed piece of statutory interpretation but an historical aberration — one that, during the period it was enforced, left vulnerable asylum seekers stranded in encampments on the border while lawfully trying to seek asylum at a port of entry.”
Turning away asylum seekers meant they “suffered predation from gangs, malnutrition, and inadequate shelter, and some lost their lives. Blessing the government’s reading of the INA — and thereby opening the door to reinstatement of the turnback policy — would therefore be a moral disaster, not just a legal error,” the bishops wrote.
“It is unsurprising that care for refugees has been a cornerstone of the Church’s teachings since its founding: Catholics believe refugees reflect the image of Christ and deserve the utmost charity. Even a sovereign state’s power over its borders cannot abridge this fundamental duty of care — which, at the very minimum, requires that nations not put asylum seekers at even more risk of harm when they arrive at the border asking for relief,” the bishops wrote.
Asylum seekers, to qualify, must be present in the United States and must be fleeing imminent persecution based on religious, political, or racial discrimination, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Seeking asylum for economic reasons is not an acceptable criterion, DHS says.
Supporters of DHS’ position say that Section 208 of the INA states that asylum seekers must be in the United States, not at its border checkpoint, to apply.
‘In’ versus ‘at’
Immigration author and former immigration judge Andrew Arthur said the case centers on a preposition: “in” versus “at.” He said the “literalist Supreme Court” is likely to issue a unanimous decision on the case, because the language, specifically the use of the preposition “in,” disallows asylum seekers to be processed on the other side of the border, because they are not “in” the United States.
“The long-term ramifications of this case are going to affirm DHS’ authority and restrictions at the border,” Arthur said.
U.S. bishops’ special message on immigration approved at the 2025 Fall Plenary Assembly on Nov. 12 expressed the bishops’ opposition to “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”
“Human dignity and national security are not in conflict,” the bishops said.
The bishops’ message also addressed their concerns over the conditions of detention centers and prayed “for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.