The policy, in effect from 2016 to 2021, allowed for the turning back of migrants at the border once a daily limit was reached. The Biden administration continued to turn away many asylum seekers through a different authority known as Title 42, Wiessner notes. [Title 42 was lifted last year.]
While the Biden administration argued that United States immigration law only applies once a migrant is inside the country’s borders, the judges disagreed in a 2-1 decision.
"A noncitizen who presents herself to a border official at a port of entry has arrived in the United States ... whether she is standing just at the edge of the port of entry or somewhere within it," Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland wrote.
Many thousands of asylum seekers were negatively affected by metering, reports Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle.
In June the Biden administration announced policies that block most asylum seekers at the border, which are facing court challenges of their own, Egelko points out. [See our resources on the June rule and proclamation.]
"I’m relieved that the court affirmed the rights of arriving asylum seekers to pursue their claims for protection along with the duties of the government to inspect and process them," said Melissa Crow, director of the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies at the University of California College of the Law in San Francisco.
Welcome to Thursday’s edition of The Forum Daily. I’m Dan Gordon, the Forum’s strategic communications VP. The great Forum Daily team also includes Jillian Clark, Soledad Gassó Parker, Camilla Luong, Ally Villarreal and Clara Villatoro. If you have a story to share from your own community, please send it to me at [email protected].
DREAMERS — Check out our new resource on Dreamers and how proposed legislation over time would have protected them. As DACA’s future remain uncertain, recipients in Colorado will be able to receive free legal assistance at an all-day clinic hosted by the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition this weekend, reports Elaine Tassy of Colorado Public Radio.
NATIONWIDE IMPLICATIONS — If Texas’ SB 4 survives a lawsuit, the implications for immigration enforcement nationwide will be significant, Alejandro Serrano of the Texas Tribune reports. The law would make crossing into Texas without authorization a state crime, allow local law enforcement to arrest undocumented immigrants and enable state judges to effectively deport people — challenging the federal government’s immigration-enforcement authority. Serrano shares several perspectives on Texas’ underlying "invasion" framing. Related: our on Texas' influence on immigration policy and rhetoric (and here are parts and ).
FALLS — At two hospitals that treat patients who fell from border barriers, severe injuries so far this year are already 58% higher than the 2023 total, reports Paul Sisson of The San Diego Union-Tribune. Scripps Mercy Hospital and UC San Diego Medical Center treat trauma patients coming from a 30-mile stretch along the California-Mexico border. The two recorded 80 such cases in 2019, 629 last year — and 993 so far this year. As we’ve noted, deterrents can increase danger rather than actually deter migration.
BUSINESS — "I think it’s time for business people to share what we know about immigration: that it powers economic growth and provides many other benefits to the country," UCLA business professor Christopher Tang writes in the Los Angeles Times. " ... ‘Zero sum’ notions of a fixed number of American jobs are simply false. The more people work and spend their wages, the more our economy grows and provides jobs for everyone, regardless of where they were born."
