OPINION — The Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision upholding border “metering” clarifies a stark legal issue: To be considered for asylum eligibility, an individual must physically set foot on U.S. soil. If the government can stall or block applicants before they physically cross the border — or get Mexico to do this — the court’s conservative majority has handed any president a powerful tool to delay or even block border asylum processing.
However, the court left the real issue untouched. Its decision does not resolve what asylum policy at the border should look like. The majority opinion dismissed as “overstated” the warning that turning people away at official ports of entry — denying them the chance to apply for asylum — will drive some to cross unlawfully elsewhere. True or not, a system that incentivizes unlawful crossings is a failure.
The American public has lost faith in this broken framework. Recent national polling conducted by the Center for American Progress and Blue Rose Research reveals a deeply divided electorate: 44% favor a hardline asylum ban, while 43% support a more progressive “reform and protect” approach. This justifiable skepticism leaves a narrow political lane for a solution that delivers security and order.
