The Supreme Court’s Thursday decision to restrict asylum applications, hailed by immigration hawks, could actually end up increasing illegal crossings, according to the three dissenting justices and immigration nonprofit involved in the case. On Thursday, the Supreme Court held in Mullin v.Al Otro Lado that migrants must physically set foot in the United States in order to be eligible for asylum, reversing lower court rulings that had required the government to process certain asylum seekers turned away at ports of entry.
While the decision is broadly viewed as making asylum claims more difficult to secure, an objective of the Trump administration, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Al Otro Lado both argue that it may have unintended consequences."This Court has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location.Yet, the majority’s construction does exactly that," Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
"It tells asylum seekers that they may apply for asylum if they can make it across the border illegally but that they cannot apply if they patiently wait at the edge of a port of entry."Al Otro Lado argued on similar lines, stating in a court filing that restricting asylum access to those who physically enter the United States would"create a perverse incentive to cross the border between ports of entry" as people who do so will receive greater rights than those stopped at ports.SUPREME COURT HANDS TRUMP TWO MAJOR IMMIGRATION VICTORIESAsylum seekers seen walking toward the southern border in Tijuana, Mexico and a image of a courtroom in the Concord Immigration Court.Kyra Lilien, an immigration judge is suing the Trump administration over her termination, alleging she was fired because of her political affiliations.
(Getty Images; Concord Immigration Court)It is unclear if the Department of Homeland Security, which celebrated the decision, has prep...