Decision 5-4 by Prime Minister Roberts ruled that “the withdrawal of the government from [Remain in Mexico] did not violate federal immigration law. This was a defeat for Texas and Missouri, which had persuaded lower courts to thwart two attempts by President Joe Biden to repeal the policy, which were implemented in January 2019. Both times, lower courts ruled that the Home Office Biden’s security did not follow proper procedures. Opponents of immigration have viewed the Biden v. Texas case as a major test of executive discretion. Opponents of Donald Trump’s hard-line approach hoped the decision would encourage Biden to repeal other retention policies, including Title 42, which cited the early COVID-19 pandemic and banned 2 million. Indeed, Governor Greg Abbott lamented the decision, warning that “it will only stimulate the Biden government’s open border policies.” The Biden administration has argued that Trump’s policy itself was an exercise in discretion and therefore subject to overthrow by another president. “This policy has always been a terrible and inhumane idea,” said Bill Holston, executive director of the North Texas Human Rights Initiative, a Dallas-based legal nonprofit. “It made it virtually impossible for people who had legally applied for asylum at the border to claim their claims in court. And he subjected them to extreme violence as they waited in dangerous border conditions. “Such policies have led people to take increasingly dangerous routes to the United States.” “This results in the tragic loss of life, as we just saw in San Antonio,” when 53 migrants aboard a tractor-trailer died in a three-digit heatwave on Monday, he said. Abbott also referred to the tragedy, but argued that maintaining and enforcing Remain in Mexico “would prevent thousands more migrants from the deadly voyage” and prevent the loss of immigrant lives. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision “unfortunate” and “wrong.” He accused Biden of “allowing hundreds of thousands of illegals to cross the border month after month” while the case was pending. “Today’s decision worsens the border crisis.” But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the U.S. Immigration Council, praised the court that closed the door on “the radical proposal that no government could ever end the Stay in Mexico program.” Disappointed with the SCOTUS decision that allowed Biden to eliminate Remain in Mexico. I pray that he will make the right decision and maintain his policy, given our unprecedented border crisis. South Texas is already seeing the impact of open borders. Removing it would be disastrous. – Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) June 30, 2022 Rosalío Sosa, a pastor who leads a network of shelters in the state of Chihuahua opposite El Paso, Ciudad Juarez, Palomas and Ascension, called the decision “divine intervention on behalf of immigrants.” “Staying in Mexico was not just hard, it was deadly,” he said, because Mexico is so dangerous to immigrants that for many, “it makes more sense to risk crossing the desert.” According to the MPP, asylum seekers from countries other than Mexico arriving at the southwestern border – either at ports of entry or in between – have returned to Mexico to await a hearing at the U.S. Immigration Court. Many ended up in dangerous and unhealthy refugee camps, including a particularly miserable camp in Matamoros that was emptied and leveled after Biden took office and suspended MPP enrollment. Human Rights First monitored more than 1,500 reported abductions and attacks against immigrants enrolled in the program. The State Department issued the highest security warning for the Tamaulipas state of Matamor, south of McAllen, a major migration corridor. Sosa estimated that more than 7,500 registered migrants have been stranded in northern Mexico, adding that the normalization of the asylum process “removes a key marketing tool for smugglers, who plunder the desperation and frustration of these immigrants.” At the April 26 hearing, judges appeared to be confused by mixed messages from Congress: chronic funding shortages and inconsistencies in statutes, some saying federal authorities “can detain” immigrants, others saying “they will” keep it. “ The government has argued that if Congress wanted to ban all asylum seekers from being released into the country pending hearings, it would have to provide funds to house everyone – and it never did. Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts and all three of the court’s liberals, including Stephen Breyer, whose retirement took effect Thursday afternoon. In an agreement, Kavanaugh noted that, given the lack of detention space, immigration laws allow for conditional release in the United States as immigrants await hearings. The approach of returning to Mexico is also legal. But neither is mandatory. “Because immigration statutes provide substantial discretion to the executive, different Presidents may exercise that discretion differently,” he wrote. Four conservatives disagreed. Judge Amy Coney Barrett preferred to send the fight back to a lower court, but agreed with the majority on the merits, giving something like an asterisk to the vote count. “It is a bittersweet victory, as so many lives have been lost to horrific immigration prevention policies both at the federal level and in the state of Texas,” said Fernando Garcia, executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights in El Paro. Representative Raul Ruiz, D-Calif., Chairman of the Spanish Congressional Caucus, described the decision as “a step in the right direction”, but added that “work remains to be done to build a fairer and more humane asylum process. We need to do more.” to prevent tragedies like the one we saw unfolding in San Antonio. “ U.S. law gives asylum seekers the right to file a claim on U.S. soil. But it can take years to hear. Trump and others who want to curb illegal immigration have argued that countless immigrants are taking advantage of delays to stay indefinitely in the United States and that many have false asylum claims. Trump’s policy, officially known as the Immigrant Protection Protocols, or MPP, was intended to address this. Biden terminated new MPP registrations the day he took office. By then, some 70,000 migrants had been deported in two years, including at least 16,000 children who arrived with relatives. Unaccompanied children were excluded from deportation. Mexican citizens are subject to deportation or detention under other provisions. Within five months, the Biden government had allowed 13,000 people previously registered in the United States to wait for their hearings. Homeland Security Minister Alejandro Mallorca has completely canceled Remain in Mexico on June 1, 2021. Texas and Missouri have filed a lawsuit, accusing DHS of failing to follow due process. On Aug. 15, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, appointed by Trump to Amarillo, ordered the DHS to enforce the policy until the government has enough capacity to detain all detained immigrants. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal, based in New Orleans, upheld the order. Mayorkas issued a memo on October 29 ending the MPP for the second time, insisting that he followed every procedure to the letter. The administration lost again and the program continued with a court decision. From December 6 to April 30, the latest available data, 5,014 migrants registered with the MPP. Of these, 2,914 were returned to Mexico. Most (62%) are from Nicaragua, followed by Cubans (15%) and Colombians (7%). The decision of the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the revocation of October 29 by DHS was legal. Judge Samuel Alito wrote in a dispute that internal security officials are required to keep asylum seekers out of the country awaiting trial. “When it seems that one of these foreigners is not acceptable, can the government just release the foreigner in this country and hope that the foreigner will appear at the hearing where it will be decided his right to remain? “Congress has given a clear answer to this question and the answer is no,” he wrote. Dallas, Houston and 23 other local governments across the country supported Biden’s attempt to overthrow Remain in Mexico. A friend of the court said it was unfair to keep migrants away from the pro bono legal aid offered by many cities, which would significantly improve their chances of being granted asylum. Only 2.4% of the 1,109 stay-at-home cases in Mexico so far this year have resulted in asylum, compared to about half the cases in the regular immigration court system, according to data held by researchers at the University of Syracuse. In a court ruling, the Biden government reluctantly resumed the MPP in December. Mexico has won concessions in exchange for continued cooperation: COVID-19 vaccination for all immigrants subject to the policy. a commitment to complete their cases within 180 days, which required dozens more immigration judges; and better access to immigrant lawyers, especially those who fear returning to Mexico. Mexico’s role in the implementation of the policy was the main focus of the oral arguments. Several judges have expressed deep skepticism about Texas’ insistence that the Biden government has no flexibility in the way it treats asylum seekers, given the lack of space for detention and dependence on …
