The Supreme Court upholds Biden’s efforts to complete the ‘Stay in Mexico’ program

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to end the Trump-era immigration plan that will force asylum seekers across the southwest border to wait for approval in Mexico.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Brett M. Kavanagh and three Liberal members of the court joined. Judge Amy Connie Barrett accepted most of the Chief Justice’s review.

Challenged project, commonly known Stay in Mexico And formal immigration protection regulations apply to persons leaving the Third Country and reaching the U.S. border via Mexico. Since the policy went into effect in early 2019, tens of thousands of people have been waiting Unhygienic tent camps For immigration inquiries. Have been Widely Reports Sexual abuse, Abduction And torture.

As soon as he took office, President Biden sought to complete the plan. Texas and Missouri sued, and lower courts upheld it, ruling that federal immigration laws should withdraw land-based immigrants and prevent their cases from being heard.

Since the Biden administration relaunched the program in December, far fewer immigrants have been registered than during the Trump era. Immigrants will be repatriated under the program only if there is adequate accommodation, as the United States has agreed to take additional steps to meet certain requests from Mexico.

By the end of May, the Biden administration had added more than 7,200 immigrants to the program since December 2021. Most of those registered in recent months are Nicaraguans and men.

From January 2019, when the Trump administration launched the program, until the end of 2020, nearly 70,000 immigrants were sent to Mexico to wait for their court hearings. American Immigration Council.

Case, Biden v. Texas, no. 21-954, unusually complex, contains three legal provisions pointing in different directions.

One rule states that the federal government usually “prevents” immigrants while waiting to consider their immigration activities. But Congress has never allocated enough money to contain the number of victims.

For example, by 2021, the government had processed about 670,000 immigrants to the Mexican border, but had the capacity to detain about 34,000.

The second provision stated that the government could “return” immigrants to their home country by land.

The third rule allowed the government to release immigrants into the United States while waiting for their trial “on humanitarian grounds or on a case-by-case basis for significant public interest”.

Judge Matthew J. Cosmetic U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo, Ruled Last year’s immigration laws required the federal government to send back to Mexico whenever there was no evidence to detain non-citizens seeking asylum.

The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene immediately, but it did not Refused to stop Judge Kacsmarik ruled that the program should be restarted. Three more Liberal judges disagreed.

Of the court Abbreviated, unsigned order At the time management seemed to have acted arbitrarily and disgustingly in canceling the plan. 2020 results The Trump administration has refused to allow the immediate repeal of the Obama-era plan to protect young immigrants known as Dreamers.

The Biden administration took appropriate action Restart the program Even if it releases a new decision to bring it to an end. Executives released a 38-page memorandum in response to criticism that they acted in a hurry.

They concluded that the costs of the project outweighed its benefits. Those costs include the risky conditions in Mexico, the difficulties immigrants face in dealing with lawyers across the border, and the administration’s foreign policy intentions and ways to undermine domestic policy initiatives, the memo said.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Round in New Orleans, Rejected the administration’s plan To close the program.

“The government states that there is an irrevocable and unilateral discretion to create and remove entire elements of the federal bureaucracy that affect countless peoples, tax dollars and sovereign nations,” said Judge Andrew S. Oldham wrote to the board. “The government says there is an irrevocable and unilateral discretion to ignore the legal limits imposed by Congress.”

The government says it can do all this by typing up a new ‘memo’ and posting it on the Internet, “he added.” If the government is right, it will change the rule of law instead. We think the government is wrong.

Elaine Sullivan Contributed report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.