Federal Appeals Court Rules 'Remain In Mexico' Policy Is Invalid

The Remain in Mexico policy, implemented by the Trump administration in January 2019, required asylum seekers to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearings. Intended to reduce border crossings and detention overcrowding, it has faced criticism for endangering migrants, many of whom live in unsafe conditions. A court ruled the policy invalid, citing inconsistency with federal law. Additional measures have been introduced to make seeking asylum more difficult, including requiring applications in transit countries.

What was the primary goal of the Remain in Mexico policy introduced by the Trump administration?

• To provide better living conditions for asylum seekers

• To encourage more migrant families to cross the border

• To reduce overcrowding in detention facilities

• To increase the number of asylum seekers

What was the effect of the Remain in Mexico policy on the number of people sent back to Mexico?

• It increased to 59,000 people

• It remained the same

• It decreased significantly

• It was not affected

What are some of the risks faced by asylum seekers waiting in Mexico?

• Better healthcare facilities

• Increased opportunities for employment

• Higher chances of kidnappings and violence

• Improved access to legal aid

Which court ruled that the Remain in Mexico policy is inconsistent with federal law?

• The Supreme Court

• The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

• The District Court

• The Federal Circuit Court

What additional measures did the administration implement to make it harder for asylum seekers?

• Requiring asylum seekers to apply in other countries first

• Providing free legal assistance

• Increasing the number of immigration judges

• Offering financial aid to asylum seekers