Systematic Harm to Immigrants and Asylum Seekers: Remain in Mexico, Title 42 Expulsions, and Migrant Protection Protocols
Tier 3Active2019-01-25 to 2025-01-21
Factual Summary
Beyond the family separation policy documented in INDIV-001, the Trump administration implemented several additional immigration policies that subjected asylum seekers and immigrants to documented harm. These policies were enacted during Trump's first term, partially reversed under President Biden, and reinstated in his second term beginning January 2025.
The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), publicly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, were implemented in January 2019. Under MPP, non-Mexican individuals arriving at the southern border and requesting asylum were issued notices to appear in immigration court and returned to Mexico to await their hearings. The Department of Homeland Security processed approximately 71,000 asylum seekers through MPP between January 2019 and its suspension in January 2021.
Human Rights First documented at least 1,544 publicly reported cases of murder, rape, kidnapping, torture, and other violent crimes committed against individuals returned to Mexico under MPP through February 2021. Asylum seekers were forced to wait in border cities controlled by drug cartels, often in makeshift encampments without adequate shelter, sanitation, or legal representation. The denial rate for MPP asylum cases was exceptionally high, in part because applicants had limited access to attorneys and faced logistical barriers to attending hearings in the United States.
In March 2020, the Trump administration invoked Title 42, a public health statute, to expel migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims. While framed as a COVID-19 health measure, the policy was developed and advocated by immigration restrictionist Stephen Miller before the pandemic. Under Title 42, border officials carried out more than 2.9 million expulsions through the policy's end in May 2023, with the majority occurring under the Biden administration, which continued the policy.
Title 42 expulsions denied individuals the opportunity to apply for asylum, a right guaranteed under both domestic and international law. Many expelled individuals were returned to countries where they faced documented threats of persecution, violence, or death.
In addition to MPP and Title 42, the Trump administration implemented several other restrictive measures: the "transit ban" requiring asylum seekers to first apply for protection in countries they traveled through; "metering" at ports of entry that limited the number of asylum seekers processed per day; and expedited removal procedures that reduced the time available for asylum screening interviews.
On January 21, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced the reinstatement of MPP for a third time under Trump's second term.
Primary Sources
1. DHS, "Migrant Protection Protocols" (archived): https://www.dhs.gov/archive/migrant-protection-protocols-trump-administration-archive
2. Human Rights First, "Delivered to Danger" report series documenting crimes against MPP enrollees, updated through 2021
3. CDC Order invoking 42 U.S.C. 265, March 20, 2020
4. ACLU v. Mayorkas and related litigation challenging Title 42 and MPP
5. American Immigration Council, "The 'Migrant Protection Protocols'" fact sheet: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/migrant-protection-protocols/
Corroborating Sources
1. ACLU: "Trump's Remain in Mexico Policy is at the Supreme Court. Here's What's at Stake," 2022
2. Migration Policy Institute: "Title 42 Postmortem: U.S. Pandemic-Era Expulsions Policy Did Not Shut Down the Border," 2023
3. NPR: "Trump says he's bringing back his 'Remain in Mexico' policy," January 20, 2025
4. WOLA: "10 Things to Know About the End of Title 42," 2023
5. CFR: "Why Biden Is Restarting the Trump-Era 'Remain in Mexico' Program," 2021
Counterarguments and Context
The Trump administration argued that MPP was necessary to address a humanitarian crisis at the border and to deter fraudulent asylum claims. Officials stated that the policy discouraged individuals from making dangerous journeys to the border and reduced the burden on U.S. immigration courts. Regarding Title 42, the administration argued that the policy was a legitimate public health measure during a pandemic. The Biden administration's continuation of Title 42 for more than two years after taking office complicates the characterization of the policy as uniquely attributable to Trump. Supporters also noted that the U.S. immigration system was under severe strain and that these policies represented lawful exercises of executive authority, several of which were upheld or not blocked by federal courts. The Supreme Court ruled in Biden v. Texas (2022) that the Biden administration had the authority to end MPP, implicitly recognizing that it was a discretionary policy, not a legal requirement.
Author's Note
The documented harm to individuals under these policies is extensive and has been verified by international human rights organizations, U.S. government watchdogs, and federal courts. The 1,544 documented cases of violent crime against MPP enrollees represent only publicly reported incidents; the actual number is likely higher. The use of a public health statute to circumvent asylum law, particularly given evidence that the policy was conceived before the pandemic, raises questions about whether the stated justification was pretextual. The reinstatement of MPP in January 2025 indicates that these policies remain a defining feature of Trump's approach to immigration, with consequences borne primarily by individuals fleeing violence and persecution.