The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), more commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, required non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases proceeded through US immigration courts [1]. Introduced in January 2019 under the Trump administration and officially ended in August 2022, the policy was justified as a way to prevent fraudulent asylum claims and ease overcrowding at the border [2]. In practice, MPP outsourced US asylum responsibilities and denied many people access to fair legal processes. Though MPP ended two years ago, its legacy continues to shape the current immigration debate, normalizing the idea that the US can protect its border by endangering the vulnerable.
In early 2019, MPP was implemented through a Department of Homeland Security memorandum and was never passed by Congress; this made it easier to implement and harder to challenge [3]. Between 2019 and 2021, more than 70,000 non-Mexican migrants, including families with infants and unaccompanied minors, were forced to remain in Mexico while waiting for a court date [4]. Most arrived at the border with no prior knowledge that they would be forced to live in cities such as Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Matamoros—cities plagued by crime, corruption, and some of the highest murder rates in North America [5]. Human Rights Watch documented widespread reports of kidnappings, sexual assault, extortion, and even murder, which targeted waiting migrants under this policy [6].
Among those migrants was Nicole, a 24-year-old pregnant woman fleeing gang violence in Honduras. She arrived in Ciudad Juárez in 2019 and spent several months living in a makeshift camp near the border. During that time, she was kidnapped and assaulted by gang members; the attack caused her to miscarry [7]. Her story is not uncommon; the dangers migrants faced were direct outcomes of a policy that placed them directly in harm’s way, often without their knowledge until they arrived in Mexico [8].
The Trump administration publicly framed this as a necessary action for border security, but the policy’s underlying strategy was deterrence by hardship. By forcing migrants to endure unsafe and unstable conditions, the US government hoped fewer people would seek refuge at all. This philosophy did not improve the asylum process; rather, it shifted responsibility to Mexico and weakened the credibility of the US government’s commitment to upholding human rights and justice.
MPP also caused significant legal and procedural problems. US immigration law promises every asylum seeker due process and the opportunity for legal counsel. Yet for those waiting in Mexico, that promise was not their reality. Migrants were required to attend court hearings in the US, but were often denied entry or unable to safely get through cartel-controlled areas. Missing even one required hearing could result in an automatic deportation order [9]. For those who did appear at court hearings, access to an attorney was almost nonexistent. Approximately less than 1 percent of migrants who arrived under MPP won their cases [10]. Legal analysts and human rights organizations argued that the policy violated the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to places where they face persecution or serious harm, yet MPP did exactly that [11].
When President Biden took office in 2021, his administration immediately tried to terminate MPP, citing it as “inhumane and ineffective.” A court order in late 2021 forced its brief reinstatement. It was not until the Supreme Court ruled against the policy in 2022 that MPP was officially terminated. By that time, its damage had already been done; thousands of people endured homelessness, violence, and kidnapping. The trauma they endured did not disappear simply because the policy ended.
The policy set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that the US could outsource asylum responsibilities while maintaining plausible deniability. Its philosophy of deterrence by hardship continues to influence policy proposals today, including offshore processing and policies requiring asylum seekers to wait outside the US. The Trump administration also tried to reinstate MPP in January 2025, though a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against it three months later [12]. The fact that MPP was considered for reinstatement this year demonstrates how deeply it affects current immigration policy and how it remains a desirable policy to the current administration. The existence of MPP normalized deterrence-based policies and lowered the moral bar for what policymakers consider acceptable.
The “Remain in Mexico” policy failed in every capacity. It did not significantly deter migration, improve asylum processing, or uphold the law. It exposed thousands of innocent people to harm and violated the American government’s commitment to justice. True border security cannot exist without intentional legislation and morality; the US must reject deterrence-based policies that rely on suffering as a solution. We must instead establish fair and efficient processes that uphold the law and human rights. US immigration policies should be a reflection of our morals as a country: justice, compassion, and refuge for the oppressed. The “Remain in Mexico” program will be remembered not as a step toward security, but as a failure of conscience, and one that must never be repeated. As President Ronald Reagan said, “This, I believe, is one of the most important sources of America’s greatness. We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength—from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so, we continuously renew and enrich our nation” [13]. Both Americans and those who seek to become American deserve basic human dignity, and our immigration system must finally treat them that way.