Representative warns about immigration and links arrival of radical Islam to national security risks

 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave the green light to judicial review of an immigration policy that for years limited access to asylum for people attempting to file claims at ports of entry on the southern border. The decision reignites a legal and political dispute over the scope of the Executive Branch's powers to regulate the entry of migrants.

The case reached the highest court after President Donald Trump asked the justices to reconsider a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had declared the practice illegal because it restricted rights established in asylum law. With this request, Trump seeks to regain leeway to implement stricter border control measures.

The policy in question, informally known as "dosing," limited the number of applicants who could begin the process each day, effectively forcing many migrants to wait in Mexico for extended periods. The Biden administration dismantled this mechanism, arguing that it created unjustified delays and precarious humanitarian conditions.

However, proponents of maintaining the policy argue that it gave authorities greater capacity to manage migration flows and prevent the system from becoming overwhelmed. The Supreme Court's review of the case could define the extent to which the federal government can regulate access to asylum and shape the course of immigration policy in the coming years.