On April 26th the Supreme Court gave signals that it might approve Joe Biden’s plan to rescind the Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy for asylum-seeking illegal immigrants. A majority of the SCOTUS justices during oral arguments suggested they would certainly approve the Department of Homeland Security’s plan to end the program, which a federal judge stayed last August. Ending the program would permit illegal alien asylum applicants to wait in the United States while the courts investigated their claims. Conservative challengers assert that ending Remain in Mexico would break federal law. Yet Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett suggested an immigration rule that permits the release of asylum seekers for “humanitarian reasons” on a case-by-case basis might allow for the administration’s strategies.
The courts have permitted Biden to finesse both sides of the immigration dilemma at the border. Retracting Remain in Mexico, known officially as the Migrant Security Protocols (MPP), pacified leftwing lobbyists who said it was cruel to require asylum seekers to wait in refugee camps prior to their court dates. Court orders dating to summer 2021 needed immigration authorities to preserve MPP, if just half-heartedly.
Federal law needs the government to restrain asylum seekers or return them to surrounding nations pending a hearing. The Trump White House used that law as the lawful basis for Remain in Mexico. Attorneys for Texas claim the Biden administration will absolutely break that law if it succeeds in ending the Remain in Mexico policy. Now the Biden regime is before SCOTUS to argue against following the law as written.
Solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar states the federal government does not have the detention center capacity to hold every illegal immigrant seeking asylum. When even more than 220,000 are going across the boundary per month, Prelogar declared Homeland Security can house about 32,000 migrants at a time.
Chief Justice John Roberts stated that challenge does not overcome the law.
“If you’re stuck because there’s no way you can comply with the law and deal with the problem there, I guess I’m just wondering why that’s our problem,” Roberts told Prelogar. “Our problem is to say what the law is.”
Detention is the default, paroling migrants is enabled on a case-by-case basis if there is an “urgent humanitarian reason or significant public benefit.” Kavanaugh as well as Barrett pushed Texas solicitor general Judd Rock on whether Biden’s termination of Remain in Mexico can make it through under that exception. Stone battled to provide a convincing answer, which can give a critical lifeline for the administration.
Operating MPP needs the cooperation of the Mexican government, which opposes the program. Justice Elena Kagan said a win for Texas would offer the Mexican federal government effective leverage over United States diplomats.
“Mexico has all the leverage in the world to say: Well, you want to comply with the Court’s order? Here are 20 things that you need to do for us,” Kagan said.
Tuesday’s debates also broached the continuous debate over judicial participation with migration policy. President Donald Trump railed against courts that blocked his migration agenda, a difficulty that’s dogged his successor. The chief justice responded to that concern Tuesday.
“I think it’s a bit much for Texas to substitute itself for the [DHS] secretary,” Roberts told Stone.
The 2020 SCOTUS decision requiring the Trump White House to preserve the Deferred Activity for Youth Arrivals program is likewise at play in the event. The DACA ruling faulted the Trump administration authorities for failing to check out the alternatives and the interests of illegal immigrants in the program. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Biden’s proposal to terminate MPP is invalid for the precise very same factors, pointing to the DACA decision.
That result was a bitter turnaround for liberals and immigration supporters elated at the DACA judgment.
Also as administration legal representatives push to take down Remain in Mexico, the Department of Homeland Safety is bracing itself for a surge in illegal border crossings. Homeland Security leadership even examined relaxing safety and security clearance requirements to increase vetting and border security procedures, according to interior memos the Washington Free Beacon gathered in April.
Trump-era figures suggest that just a fraction of MPP enrollees had genuine asylum claims. Approximately 27,000 were awaiting hearings when Biden took office. Just 723 were provided asylum.
A coalition of 60 pro-immigration teams is backing the administration in SCOTUS. They described an unsteady and also vicious safety and security situation on the Mexican side of the border area in an anti-MPP amicus brief.
” Mexican security forces remain powerless to stop the kidnapping, extortion, and also murder of travelers by cartels, and continue to team up with the cartels in such criminal activities,” the brief reviews.
A decision in the case, No. 21-954 Texas v. Biden, is anticipated by summer.
