Amna Nawaz:
Well, to discuss the impact of today’s immigration rulings, we turn now to Doris Meissner. She served as a top official at the Immigration and Naturalization Service under President Reagan and led it under President Clinton. She’s now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute.
Doris, thanks for being here.
Doris Meissner, Migration Policy Institute:
Thank you.
Amna Nawaz:
Let’s start with that ruling on asylum seekers in particular. That metering process, I have seen that firsthand under the first Trump administration at the border. The court says the administration can continue to stop people, migrants at the border, from seeking asylum.
What’s your response to that? What’s the impact of that right now?
Doris Meissner:
Well, the impact of that right now is very little. It’s pretty moot. I mean, this is a practice that started back in — at the end of the Obama administration. It’s had its ups and downs in terms of the numbers of people coming across the border.
But the Trump administration has entirely shut it down. So at this point, it’s making a point in the law that, should circumstances like this arise again, the government would be in its rights of doing so. But it has very — it’s not going to make much difference at the present time.
Amna Nawaz:
I want to play for you a little bit of sound from White House’s Stephen Miller, who reacted to that ruling, and he had this to say about asylum seekers. Take a listen.
Stephen Miller, White House Deputy Chief of Staff: In every case, they’re either criminals, benefit seekers, economic migrants, welfare seekers, et cetera, et cetera. They’re coming to join family members and so forth. But the good news for them is that you have other countries willing to take them.
Amna Nawaz:
Doris, is that an accurate description of who is arriving at the U.S. southern border? And are there other countries for them to go to seek asylum?
Doris Meissner:
Well, they’re a mixed population. And that’s what makes it very difficult. If they were one thing, then it would be quite easy to decide what — how to process.
But these people coming during this period of time have all kinds of claims or non-claims. And so the difficulty is for the government to disaggregate and decide who legitimately is an asylum seeker, who legitimately might have a reason for entering and who should be turned back.
So this is painting with a very, very broad brush.
Amna Nawaz:
I have heard this claim from Border Patrol officials, advocacy groups that, when legal pathways close, migrants seeking asylum or seeking safety will often turn to more dangerous pathways. Cartels can even charge more money, for example.
Is that an unintended possible consequence here?
Doris Meissner:
That’s a part of law enforcement along the border and it’s a part of any law enforcement. It’s kind of the balloon effect. You do something one place, things pop out in a different place.
But I would have to say that, right now, I think that it’s less likely, because there is so much enforcement taking place. So many resources have been poured into border enforcement and into immigration enforcement overall that I’m not at all sure that we will see any real shift.
The numbers are very low. And there’s a combination of things that are going on. I mean, this administration has had a very, very clear view that is based on a presidential priority for mass deportations, as well as all kinds of other enforcement practices, that are creating a deterrent effect.
And there is really no willingness in this administration at this point to try to disaggregate legitimate claims from migrants in general.
Amna Nawaz:
I want to turn now to the ruling that allows the administration to end protected status for migrants from Haiti and from Syria.
And I want to play for you what a man named Viles Dorsainvil, who’s himself a TPS holder, a Haitian immigrant, a pastor, and director of the Haitian Support Center in Springfield, Ohio, said in response to the ruling. Here he is.
Viles Dorsainvil, Director, Haitian Community Help and Support Center: The families are here, and kids are going to schools, parents are going to work. Folks try to commute, and as if like the Supreme Court just put all those activities on stop and put folks in limbo. And this is so sad for us to see happening in a country such as USA.
Amna Nawaz:
Meanwhile, Doris, the general counsel for DHS tweeted, saying that: “The T in TPS stands for temporary. Yet, many of these designations become de facto amnesty.” He called it a win for the rule of law and common sense.
What do you make of that?
Doris Meissner:
Well, temporary is supposed to be temporary. That is what it’s stated in the statute. But at the same time, the reality on the ground is that country conditions in some of these very, very troubled places of the world don’t just turn around in six months or 18 months.
And so you have here — I mean, when you think of the nationalities, this is the decision that really will affect people in terms of what the Supreme Court’s cases today were. We have about 350,000 Haitians right now that are in Temporary Protected Status, 6,000 Syrians.
This decision allows the administration to withdraw Temporary Protected Status from remaining 13 countries. They include Afghanistan, Venezuela. So, a lot of people have been here for a long time. It’s true that the temporary stretches out.
But, at the same time, returning those people in countries of that level of danger and just is a very, very serious matter. And so if you think, in March about a year ago, March, right after this administration came in, we had about 1.3 million people on Temporary Protected Status of one sort or another from many countries around the world.
By probably about November this year, if the government follows through, which we have every reason to think, there will be none. And that is a very, very consequential decision.
Amna Nawaz:
It’s a remarkable shift.
Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute, thank you for being here.
