Trump won two important victories in the Supreme Court on Thursday: Migrants with rejected claims can be returned to third countries, even if this occurs against their will. Migrants can be turned away at the border and can be denied the opportunity to apply for asylum in order to gain entry. The USA is thus miles ahead of the EU in its asylum policy.

In the first case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Court held that migrants who are turned away at the border before entering the USA do not have the right to apply for asylum. In the second case, Mullin v. Doe, the Court ruled that Haitian and Syrian citizens in the USA with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) could not obtain judicial relief to delay the termination of their status while they challenge the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate it in court.
Taken together, the rulings mark a shift in the legal battle over who can seek protection in the USA, and give the Trump administration a new opportunity to limit asylum applications at the border and greater room for manoeuvre to proceed with terminating temporary protection for certain migrants already in the country. The rulings also remove central legal obstacles to the administration’s broader drive to reduce border crossings and accelerate deportations.
In his reasoning in the case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, Justice Samuel Alito argued that an immigrant who reaches the southern border but is turned away before entering is, legally speaking, not deemed to have “arrived” in the USA. The decision is important because current legislation stipulates that anyone who “arrives in the USA” has the right to apply for asylum.

Both cases are relevant to Norwegian conditions. Syrians and Ukrainians were granted temporary residence. In Syria the conditions are such that it is defensible to return citizens. The proposal has only been hinted at so far.
Equally dramatic is rejection at the border. If this became policy in Europe, one could send the boats back. That is what Australia did. They sent boat refugees to remote islands. There they faced an existence that caused the traffic to stop.
The EU machinery is unable to take such decisions as the USA, which has a federal system. In the EU a system for returns to third countries has been adopted.

The critics – the three liberal justices on the Supreme Court – had three objections: that the rulings violated the asylum seekers’ rights and that Trump has racist motives.
The EU is on the side of the liberals. In Europe they have the European Convention on Human Rights to rely on, and accusations of racism come easily.

“In these cases we consider whether the plaintiffs, who challenge the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for aliens from Syria and Haiti, are entitled to orders that stay the termination while the case is pending,” wrote Alito. “We hold that they are not.”
The dissenting justices, led by Elena Kagan, contended that the Haitian asylum seekers may have a constitutional basis for preventing the termination of their status. According to Kagan, there is evidence suggesting that the Trump administration was motivated by “racial animus” when it decided to terminate TPS for Haitians.
To support this argument, she cites statements the President made about Haitians in the run-up to the 2024 election, including claims that they were eating pets in Ohio, as well as other remarks he has made about immigrants of African origin. If race was a factor in the denial of TPS status for Haitians, they could argue that their constitutional right to equal protection under the law had been violated, which would give the lower courts the opportunity to protect them from deportation for as long as the litigation continues.

The Democrats are losing. They now admit that they are discussing an expansion of the Supreme Court if they get the chance.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hands-trump-two-major-immigration-victories