Ben Shapiro

You elect people to change the policy.

The Supreme Court is here to interpret what the law currently says, not what it should say or who should be elected.

So the plaintiffs in this case are a bunch of people who are not citizens.

They're trying to get into the United States.

And they say that their rights were violated because their asylum cases were never heard because they were in line.

And that is as good as being in the country.

So they never entered the United States.

They were turned away at the border.

And the court, 6-3 in a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, great justice, says, no, no, no.

In the United States means in the United States.

You're not in the United States if you're waiting on the other side of the border.

So the court says, this case presents a straightforward question.

whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico arrives in the United States, that's the language of the law, arrives in the United States when he or she is still in Mexico.

In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered, yes, that is wrong.

In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person arrives in a place, for example, a house, a city, or a country before the person enters that place.

The context in which the phrase arrives in the United States is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary meaning reading.

So does the presumption against extraterritoriality.

We therefore reverse.

We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not arrive in the United States by attempting and failing to set foot in this country.

An alien arrives in the United States only when he crosses the border.