-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Will the Supreme1 Court be as deferential2 to Biden on immigration as it was to Trump3?
Another day, another hot-button issue at the U.S. Supreme Court. This time the question is whether the Biden administration must continue to enforce the Trump-era program known as Remain in Mexico. The policy requires asylum5-seekers, mainly from Central and South America, to remain in Mexico while they wait for a hearing in a U.S. immigration court.
The Trump administration devised the Remain in Mexico policy in hopes of deterring6 migrants from streaming into the U.S. with asylum claims. The Biden administration suspended the program immediately upon taking office, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting7 on a challenge brought by Texas and Missouri, ordered the new administration to continue the Trump policy. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court hears the argument in an expedited appeal.
The case centers on the meaning of numerous immigration provisions, how they have been interpreted for decades and, bluntly put, whether the Supreme Court will be as deferential to the Biden administration as it was to the Trump administration when it comes to immigration enforcement policies.
How the law works
Immigration law operates like a Russian nesting doll: You open it up, and another doll is inside and then another and another.
According to the states of Texas and Missouri, backed by 21 other red states, the law says that all asylum-seekers "shall be detained," and "shall" means that they must be detained for however long it takes until their cases are decided8 in court.
"The administration basically has two choices," says Indiana Solicitor9 General Thomas Fisher. "You either detain people seeking asylum at the border," or "if you don't have the detention10 space, you're sort of left with returning them to Mexico." Fisher wrote an amicus brief on behalf of 19 states supporting Texas and Missouri.
But that is not the way the law has ever been enforced by any administration, Democratic or Republican, including the Trump administration. In fact, while the "shall" language has been in the immigration law since 1903, so has other arguably contrary language, using qualifiers and words such as "may."
For example, another provision says the government "may" release asylum-seekers into the U.S. "on a case-by-case basis for 'urgent humanitarian11 reasons.' " The Biden administration argues that this provision serves as an alternative release valve, allowing the government to release asylum-seekers who "present neither a security risk nor a risk of absconding12."
A complicated issue
Former immigration officials, Republican and Democratic, say there's a good reason for the fudgy language: Everything about borders is complicated. To begin with, there has been no major rewrite of the nation's immigration laws in more than 25 years. The last time the law was updated, in 1996, legislative13 disagreements were resolved with compromise language to deal with the fact that, on the one hand, Congress wanted to make it more difficult to release asylum-seekers pending14 their hearings and, on the other, detaining everyone would be prohibitively expensive.
At no time since the 1996 law was passed has everyone - or even most of the people - seeking asylum been detained, including in the Trump years.
The problem is that "Congress has only appropriated money for Homeland Security to detain around 30- to 40-thousand individuals at any given moment," says Stewart Verdery, who served as assistant secretary of homeland security during George W. Bush's administration. These days, Verdery observes, over a million people cross the border a year, so "by definition, you can't detain everybody."
Did Remain in Mexico work?
Immigration specialists disagree as to how effective the Remain in Mexico policy has been as a deterrent15.
Indiana's solicitor general, Fisher, argues that the Trump program was working. "The volume of applicants16 showing up at the border decreased precipitously," he says, citing a 2019 report by the Trump administration.
"That's false," says Jeh Johnson, who served as the Obama-era secretary of homeland security from 2013 to 2017. On the Trump administration's watch in 2019, "we had almost 1 million apprehensions17 on our southern border ... the highest number we've seen in years," Johnson observes.
Under the Trump administration, only 68,000 people were put into the Remain in Mexico program by Customs and Border Protection - a tiny fraction of those seeking asylum in the United States.
Implications for foreign policy
At the heart of all this is a separate legal question: whether the courts should second-guess the foreign policy judgments18 that undergird this and other immigration policies. At this point, neither Mexico nor the Biden administration wants Remain in Mexico to continue. Both see it as a flawed program in which migrants in squalid camps at the border have little ability to find lawyers or information for their hearings and are subject to violent attacks, kidnapping, extortion and rape19 by criminal cartels.
What's more, the Biden administration sees the lower court's order as invading its ability to deal effectively with Mexico. A group of former immigration officials from both parties echoes that point in friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case.
For instance, Verdery points to the port of San Ysidro, south of San Diego, the busiest port of entry in the U.S., with 32 lanes of traffic, trucks, cargo20, tourists and an unknown number of migrants trying to cross the border illegally. It's a place where billions and billions of dollars in trade and people transit21 across the border every day, according to Verdery, and managing priorities with Mexico is a complicated and fluid task.
To cite just one example, he notes that after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. and Mexico went to a maximum level of protection and then over time relaxed restrictions22 because the economies in both countries were suffering. Such continually changing circumstances are part of why the courts have largely deferred23 to the executive branch in managing the border with Mexico.
"This is something that has to be worked out between governments, and it really is not a place for a court to get involved," Verdery says.
Johnson, the former DHS secretary, echoes that sentiment, contending that the lower court was outside its constitutional lane when it told the executive branch of the U.S. government to tell the government of Mexico to restore Remain in Mexico. "Rarely, if ever, has a court decision intruded24 into the foreign policy of the United States in this way," Johnson says.
But countering that argument, Texas and other Republican-dominated states argue that in 1996 Congress intended to narrow the executive branch's discretion25 and that now is the time to hold true to that mandate26.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 deferential | |
adj. 敬意的,恭敬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 asylum | |
n.避难所,庇护所,避难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 deterring | |
v.阻止,制止( deter的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 acting | |
n.演戏,行为,假装;adj.代理的,临时的,演出用的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 solicitor | |
n.初级律师,事务律师 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 detention | |
n.滞留,停留;拘留,扣留;(教育)留下 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 humanitarian | |
n.人道主义者,博爱者,基督凡人论者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 absconding | |
v.(尤指逃避逮捕)潜逃,逃跑( abscond的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 pending | |
prep.直到,等待…期间;adj.待定的;迫近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 deterrent | |
n.阻碍物,制止物;adj.威慑的,遏制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 applicants | |
申请人,求职人( applicant的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 apprehensions | |
疑惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 judgments | |
判断( judgment的名词复数 ); 鉴定; 评价; 审判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 rape | |
n.抢夺,掠夺,强奸;vt.掠夺,抢夺,强奸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 cargo | |
n.(一只船或一架飞机运载的)货物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 transit | |
n.经过,运输;vt.穿越,旋转;vi.越过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 restrictions | |
约束( restriction的名词复数 ); 管制; 制约因素; 带限制性的条件(或规则) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 deferred | |
adj.延期的,缓召的v.拖延,延缓,推迟( defer的过去式和过去分词 );服从某人的意愿,遵从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 intruded | |
n.侵入的,推进的v.侵入,侵扰,打扰( intrude的过去式和过去分词 );把…强加于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 mandate | |
n.托管地;命令,指示 | |
参考例句: |
|
|