Supreme Court denies Biden administration efforts to end 'Remain in Mexico' policy

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  3 weeks ago  •  9 comments

Supreme Court denies Biden administration efforts to end 'Remain in Mexico' policy
The program had previously left tens of thousands of Central American migrants waiting in tent cities where they were often subjected to violent crime.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied the Biden administration’s request to pause the implementation of a Trump-era immigration policy.

The Justice Department asked the court late last week to delay reinstatement of the policy, known as “ Remain in Mexico ,” arguing in its   brief   that the policy had been dormant for more than a year and that abruptly reinstating it “would prejudice the United States’ relations with vital regional partners, severely disrupt its operations at the southern border, and threaten to create a diplomatic and humanitarian crisis.”


A lower court had ordered the reinstatement of the program, forcing the administration to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The policy was meant to discourage asylum-seekers, but critics argue that it denies people the legal right to seek protection in the U.S. and forces them to wait in dangerous Mexican border cities. It requires asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico until their court dates in the U.S., and it previously left tens of thousands of Central American migrants waiting in tent cities in places like Matamoros, Mexico, where they were often subjected to robbery, kidnapping and assault.

President Joe Biden suspended the policy on his first day in office. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security announced in June that it was   permanently terminating   the program.

The Trump administration largely stopped using the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic because of a public health order that allowed the U.S. to turn back virtually everyone crossing the southwest border. That public health order remains in effect.

Attorneys general in Missouri and Texas   sued the Biden administration   to reinstate the policy, claiming that the high number of asylum-seekers was burdening states without DHS’s being able to detain them. Texas and Missouri also argued that the Biden administration had not gone through proper administrative procedures in ending the policy.

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of the order, but the court denied the stay Tuesday night because “the applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success” that they would win their claim to rescind the policy

DHS said in a statement that it “will comply with the order in good faith.”

“DHS remains committed to building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system that upholds our laws and values,” it said.

Omar Jadwat, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, called on lawmakers and the White House to end the program.

“The Biden administration was correct to rescind the Trump return to Mexico policy, the whole point of which was to punish people for seeking asylum by trapping them in miserable and dangerous conditions,” Jadwat said. “The government must take all steps available to fully end this illegal program, including by re-terminating it with a fuller explanation. What it must not do is use this decision as cover for abandoning its commitment to restore a fair asylum system.”

Paola Luisi, director of   Families Belong Together , a coalition of more than 250 advocacy organizations, also pressed the Biden administration to end the program.

“We cannot accept any policy — even temporary — that separates families. We urge the Biden administration to do everything within their means to put an end to this cruel ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy once and for all,” Luisi said in a statement.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1  seeder  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

It requires asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico until their court dates in the U.S.

Seeking asylum DOES NOT grant you authority to live in the U.S..  Being granted asylum DOES.

That's the law - stick with it.

The pic is a coyote who's lost his "charge" and money - hee hee hee hee 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2  evilgenius    3 weeks ago

This only applies as the original case is being appealed. The media is making more of this than it really is. The people that are here will mostly stay here (while seeking asylum) and the people in Mexico won't get additional help. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
3  Ronin2    3 weeks ago

Seems that Democrats are finally paying for the Supreme Court ruling that turned Obama's DACA EO/EA into a law. I said then that it would open the door for any other EO/EA's to be given the same weight as the law; even ones they didn't like.

Glad to see the courts at least are staying consistent. 

I highly doubt the Biden administration will honor the ruling. Expect another memo from DHS concerning the handling of illegal immigrants seeking asylum who enter this country. It will probably take several rulings against the Biden Administration before they finally run out of ways to circumvent it. By that time the damage will have been done.

 
 
 
dennis smith
Masters Silent
3.1  dennis smith  replied to  Ronin2 @3    3 weeks ago

Biden the pissant  will no doubt seek ways to NOT comply with the SCOTUS decision. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4  seeder  1stwarrior    3 weeks ago

President Obama knew he could not make DACA law -

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case , because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody knows that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. T he executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

In  March 2011 , he told Univision, "there are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply,  through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president ."

Judge Hanen, of the Fifth District, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, ruled that the creation of the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act, in part because comment from the general public was never sought. “D.H.S. failed to engage in the statutorily mandated process,” he wrote, “so DACA never gained status as a legally binding policy that could impose duties or obligations.”

Presidential executive orders, once issued, remain in force until they are canceled, revoked, adjudicated unlawful, or expire on their terms. At any time , the president may revoke, modify or make exceptions from any executive order, whether the order was made by the current president or a predecessor. Typically, a new president reviews in-force executive orders in the first few weeks in office.

Trump attempted to cancel that Executive Order and the Dems/Libs have fought tooth and nail to ensure he couldn't.

Unfortunately for them, the courts are ruling in Trump's favor.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
4.1  Ronin2  replied to  1stwarrior @4    3 weeks ago

I agree, Obama knew he couldn't use an EO/EA to create DACA. He said so repeatedly. Then went ahead and did it anyways. 

But didn't the Supreme Court side with Obama on DACA; in one of the dumbest decisions ever to override a President's ability to cancel any EO/EA made by a previous administration? 

In a major rebuke to President Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the administration's plan to dismantle an Obama-era program that has protected 700,000 so-called DREAMers from deportation. The vote was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion .

Under the Obama program, qualified individuals brought to the U.S. as children were given temporary legal status if they graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military, and if they passed a background check. Just months after taking office, Trump moved to revoke the program, only to be blocked by lower courts — and now the Supreme Court.

Roberts' opinion for the court was a narrow but powerful rejection of the way the Trump administration went about trying to abolish the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "The wisdom of those decisions is none of our concern. Here we address only whether the Administration complied with the procedural requirements in the law that insist on 'a reasoned explanation for its action.' "

In 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions simply declared DACA illegal and unconstitutional. "Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch," he said at the time. Sessions argued that the program should be rescinded because he said it was unlawful from the start.

But, as Roberts observed, the attorney general offered no detailed justifications for canceling DACA. Nor did the acting secretary of homeland security at the time, Elaine Duke, who put out a memo announcing the rescission of DACA that relied entirely on Sessions' opinion that the program was unlawful.

As Roberts noted, Duke's memo didn't address the fact that thousands of young people had come to rely on the program, emerging from the shadows to enroll in degree programs, embark on careers, start businesses, buy homes and even marry and have 200,000 children of their own who are U.S. citizens, not to mention that DACA recipients pay $60 billion in taxes each year.

I thought this court's ruling had to deal with those seeking asylum staying in Mexico until their court dates; or a decision was reached on their status?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
4.1.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1    3 weeks ago

Roberts should have been aware that SCOTUS's "job" is to ensure the law was/is Constitutional.

"the fact that thousands of young people had come to rely on the program, emerging from the shadows to enroll in degree programs, embark on careers, start businesses, buy homes and even marry and have 200,000 children of their own who are U.S. citizens, not to mention that DACA recipients pay $60 billion in taxes each year." does not address the Constitutionality of a President using an Executive Order to circumvent the law - ONLY Congress can make laws regarding immigration -

Section 8 -The Congress shall have power. . . . To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

That is what Roberts should have addressed.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Masters Quiet
4.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  1stwarrior @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5  XXJefferson51    3 weeks ago

A great and badly needed decision.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online












65 visitors