Where this was said
The Asylum Ruling: A Loophole That Rewards Illegal Crossings
At 16:53 · chapter starts 14:00
In a ruling Leah Litman calls 'unhinged,' the Court held that individuals must physically be inside the United States to have a legal right to claim asylum. The case originated from a challenge to the Obama-era metering policy — which acknowledged asylum rights but limited daily processing capacity — but the policy had already ended by the time the Court ruled [1] — Leah Litman "The Supreme Court held that migrants physically stopped outside the US border haven't 'arrived' and can't claim asylum. The perverse result…" 13:55 . The decision was entirely voluntary: the Court went out of its way to create this loophole. As Justice Sotomayor's dissent puts it, the consequences are predictable: more people will die, because the only rational response to this ruling is to attempt an illegal crossing rather than present yourself lawfully at a port of entry [2] — Leah Litman "As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the consequences are predictable. More people will die." 16:53 . The ruling penalizes the rule-followers and rewards the lawbreakers — and in doing so, drives desperate people toward criminal trafficking networks.
The Supreme Court ruled that individuals physically stopped outside US borders are not considered to have 'arrived' and thus have no right to claim asylum, creating a blanket loophole for the executive branch.
Because the ruling only allows asylum claims for those physically inside the US, it perversely incentivizes migrants to attempt illegal crossings rather than present themselves lawfully at ports of entry.
