Earlier this month, the Trump administration issued a rule and proclamation—widely known as the “asylum ban”—aimed at circumventing our nation's laws by denying asylum to individuals who cross the southern border into the United States without inspection.

While lauding the “long and proud history of offering protection to aliens who are fleeing persecution and torture and who qualify under the standards articulated in our immigration laws, including through our asylum system and the Refugee Admissions Program,” the presidential proclamation attempted to remove those protections in direct contravention of established law. In plain terms, what the administration announced was that only those who cross the border at designated checkpoints would be allowed to request asylum, while those entering elsewhere would have to seek forms of protection that are both harder to obtain and less secure.

However, in a decision late Nov. 19, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California temporarily enjoined the ban's implementation. In his ruling, he stated that the president could not change asylum law by executive fiat: “Whatever the scope of the president's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.” Tigar reasoned that the “failure to comply with entry requirements such as arriving at a designated port of entry should bear little, if any, weight in the asylum process.”

Indeed, 8 U.S.C. Section 1158 provides that any noncitizen “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States … whether or not at a designated port of arrival … may apply for asylum.” Statutes don't get much clearer. And as Tigar noted, it's not just domestic law that lights the way: the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the U.S. is a signatory, serves as an “interpretive guide” lending extra force to Congress' command. Per that protocol, no signatory should punish asylum seekers for their manner of entry, as the Trump administration patently intended to do.

The circumstances facing many asylum seekers who reach the United States, including many “caravan” members whose slow progress toward the border in part prompted the ban, illustrate the wisdom of these domestic and international obligations. While some members of the caravan are escaping poverty and famine, many others are fleeing persecution by deadly actors, including transnational gangs. In the absence of robust refugee programs in the region protecting these persecuted individuals, they may have no choice but to pursue—by land passage—asylum in a safe country.

In fact, oftentimes such individuals are literally fleeing for their own and their families' lives. They may not know where designated checkpoints are, how to present themselves at them, or have the luxury of time and resources to determine either. They simply, desperately need to reach safety.

Furthermore, as documented in recent years by organizations like the American Immigration Council and Human Rights First, even when asylum seekers do present themselves at ports of entry, U.S. Customs and Border Protection turns them back at an alarming rate. Not only is this practice illegal, it re-exposes persecuted families and minors to dangers in Mexico, leading many to conclude that presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry is no longer a viable option for accessing life-saving protection. Indeed, the Department of Homeland Security's inspector general recently cited evidence that turn-backs have prompted some asylum seekers “who would otherwise seek legal entry into the United States” to instead enter between ports of entry. For the administration to blithely attempt to require that people go to a port of entry to be eligible for asylum is reprehensible; they are already turning people away at those precise entry points.

For these reasons, Tigar is absolutely right: the government's argument that an asylum seeker's manner of entry can alone render him or her ineligible for asylum “strains credulity.” Our laws, the realities of flight from persecution, and shameful Customs and Border Protection practices make clear that how and where an asylum seeker arrives are infinitely less relevant than that individual's fear of persecution in his or her home country.

Let me be crystal clear. As the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, I know that not everyone arriving at our borders will establish “credible fear” or demonstrate eligibility for asylum. We are not and have never been for “open borders” or lack of border security. Our association's mission calls instead for us to advocate for fair and reasonable immigration law and policy—that means laws passed by Congress and policies that do not run contrary to our nation's Constitution. The president tried to do an end run around the fundamental, inalienable rights to which everyone who reaches our shores is entitled. This injunction is an example, however, of our system of checks and balances doing what it is supposed to do.

Tigar's opinion serves as a forceful reminder that, as a matter of law, everyone deserves a full and fair opportunity to seek protection as guaranteed by our laws. No presidential proclamation can strip those rights away. Thank you Judge Tigar, and thank you to the plaintiffs who brought this case and are fighting for asylum seekers' unambiguous rights. AILA stands with you.

Benjamin Johnson is the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Washington, D.C., a national association of more than 15,000 immigration lawyers.