[Mexico's Foreign Minister Marcelo] Ebrard said both McAleenan and President Trump, whom he spoke to briefly after the meeting, asked him about his government agreeing to a "safe third country" accord, which would require most migrants traveling through Mexico to seek asylum or some form of protection there, instead of in the U.S. Under economic pressure from the Trump administration, the Guatemalan government has already consented to a similar controversial agreement that has yet to be ratified by the legislature there.
Many Central Americans who have travelled to the U.S. border over the previous year have told Al Jazeera they were fleeing violence, poverty and political persecution.
The rule would block almost all families and individuals from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from entering the U.S. after crossing through Mexico as asylum seekers.
Administration officials, however, say that numerous migrants do not meet the legal standard for asylum: a reasonable fear that they will face persecution at home due to their beliefs or membership in a specific ethnic or social group.
The Supreme Court ruling is temporary but negates an earlier ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in late July.
The day the rules were announced, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Federal District Court in San Francisco blocked their implementation, claiming they did not follow required legal procedure.
Under the rule, people arriving via a third country must claim asylum there first before arriving at the USA border.
With less hope of gaining access to the interior, this rule is very likely to dissuade many asylum-seekers from making the long journey to the United States border. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.
Tigar reinstated the injunction Monday evening after opponents of the asylum ban presented the court with new evidence.
The high-courtroom motion lets the administration to impose the new coverage nearly everywhere though the court docket circumstance towards it proceeds. He wrote, "While the public has a weighty interest in the efficient administration of the immigration laws at the border, it also has a substantial interest in ensuring that the statutes enacted by its representatives are not imperiled by executive fiat", adding that the injunction "would vindicate the public's interest - which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate - in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors", as The Texas Tribune reported.
Asylum seekers must pass an initial screening called a "credible fear" interview, a hurdle that a vast majority clear. They would be placed in fast-track deportation proceedings and flown to their home countries at US expense.
That move was immediately challenged in the lower courts, and it may come back to the Supreme Court once ongoing legal challenges have been completed. "The life of countless numbers of people are at stake".