Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶133

The majority contends that this concern is “overstated” because illegal entry carries other adverse legal consequences that should discourage asylum seekers. See ante, at 17–18 (noting criminal liability and ineligibility for certain state and local public benefits). The point, however, is not that illegal entry always produces a net windfall for asylum seekers; it is that Congress was unlikely to devise a system in which asylum is available to those who unlawfully set foot over the border, but not to those who attempt to comply with the law and are physically blocked from entering at the threshold of a port of entry by an immigration officer.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.