The Supreme Court Gives Biden Victory Puts An End To The Stay In Mexico Policy.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration could overturn the Trump administration’s Immigration Protection Protocols, commonly known as the “Stay in Mexico” policy, overturning a lower court ruling. Under this policy, immigrants seeking entry into the United States had to stay in Mexico while waiting for the hearings. The Trump administration has implemented the policy so that immigrants are not released in the US The Biden administration had tried to overturn the policy, but had previously been excluded from a lower court. The question was whether the suspension and subsequent termination of the Homeland Security policy violated a federal law requiring the detention of immigrants or, if they arrived from a neighboring country, sent back. The basic statute is 8 USC Section 1225, part of which states that an applicant for admission “will be detained for a procedure” unless he or she has “clearly and unequivocally the right to be admitted” and part of which states whether he or she is from a contiguous area such as Mexico, “the Attorney General can return the alien to this territory” as they await a hearing. SUPREME COURT JUDGES HEAR ARGUMENTS ABOUT POLITICAL BORDER “REMAINS IN MEXICO” Unable to hold everyone back, Texas and Missouri quarreled over their lawsuit, sending them back whenever possible. During the Supreme Court’s oral argument, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Prlogar argued that the policy was necessary to comply with federal law. “In this reading, any presidential administration on an unbroken line for the past fourth century is openly violating [Immigration and Nationality Act]He said, adding that “if Congress had wanted to impose these results, it would have spoken clearly.” JUSTICE CLARENS THOMAS WILL NOT BE DISMISSED FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON UNDER STUDENT ORGANIZATION Judge Clarence Thomas reiterated this during the oral hearings, questioning whether it was “strange” for Congress to pass a law that the government could not follow. CLICK HERE TO RECEIVE THE FOX NEWS APPLICATION Thomas also acknowledged during the oral argument that the government had the discretion to grant parole, although the Fifth Circuit of Appeal Court, in its decision on the case, noted that according to the statute it should be “only on a case-by-case basis”, and not as a general policy applicable to any situation. This is a story that unfolds. Check again for more details.