Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

1
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.

With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court said the administration likely violated federal law in its efforts to rescind the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

It’s not clear how many people will be affected and how quickly. Under the lower court ruling, the administration must make a “good faith effort” to restart the program.

A federal judge in Texas had previously ordered that the program, formally called Migrant Protection Protocols, be reinstated last week. Both he and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s request to put the ruling on hold.

Justice Samuel Alito ordered a brief delay to allow the full court time to consider the administration’s appeal to keep the ruling on hold while the case continues to make its way through the courts.

The 5th Circuit ordered expedited consideration of the administration’s appeal.

The court offered little explanation for its action, although it cited its opinion from last year rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to end another immigration program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In that case, the court held that the decision to end DACA was “arbitrary and capricious,” in violation of federal law.

The administration has “failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious,” the court wrote Tuesday in an unsigned order.

The three dissenting justices did not write an opinion expressing their views of the case.

During Donald Trump’s presidency, the policy required tens of thousands of migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to turn back to Mexico. It was meant to discourage asylum seekers but critics said it denied people the legal right to seek protection in the U.S. and forced them to wait in dangerous Mexican border cities.

The judge, U.S. District Judge Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, ordered that the program be reinstated in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri, whose governors have been seeking to reinstate some of the hard-line anti-immigration policies of the Trump administration.

The Biden administration argued in briefs that the president has “clear authority to determine immigration policy” and that Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had discretion in deciding whether to return asylum seekers to Mexico.

In its brief to the Supreme Court on Friday, the administration argued 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.”

The Trump administration largely stopped using the “Remain in Mexico” policy at the start of the pandemic, at which point it began turning back virtually everyone crossing the Southwest border under a different protocol — a public health order that remains in effect. The Biden administration said the pre-pandemic policy had been “largely dormant” for months even before the outbreak of COVID-19.

President Joe Biden suspended the program on his first day of office and the Homeland Security Department ended it in June.

Kacsmaryk was nominated to the federal bench by Trump. The 5th Circuit panel that ruled Thursday night included two Trump appointees, Andrew Oldham and Cory Wilson, along with Jennifer Walker Elrod, nominated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme- ... 5d80c777dc

Seems we are playing two card games at once when it comes to Refugees and Asylum.With one hand we are saying we will take the Afghan refugees fleeing their country from the Taliban that we didn't have any part in starting or setting up in power. On the other hand we tell those from south of the border that are fleeing the Drug Cartels and dictators we helped set up during Iran/Contra tough shit. Another reason the South of the Border Asylum seekers are coming is they can't make a living farming any more because of the trade agreements we made with Mexico and other countries. These agreements allowed corporation such as Con-Agra to dump low price corn onto the Latin American market undercutting the local farmers.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

3
The Biden administration has to be happy about this decision, remember Harris on her visit to Mexico told Guatemala refugees "Do not come to the US". We can't remedy all the wrongs of the past as much as we would like. We have people already in this country that live in poverty, lack basic health care and are unemployed, I'd rather spend the money on improving their quality of life.

I keep looking at the "unaccompanied children" data, parents who drop their kids at the border in hopes of using them to eventually get into the US. This is a burden to the federal government who is housing, feeding and schooling these children until states and counties can find sponsors.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/grant-fundi ... sors-state
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

5
highdesert wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 10:46 am The Biden administration has to be happy about this decision, remember Harris on her visit to Mexico told Guatemala refugees "Do not come to the US". We can't remedy all the wrongs of the past as much as we would like. We have people already in this country that live in poverty, lack basic health care and are unemployed, I'd rather spend the money on improving their quality of life.

I keep looking at the "unaccompanied children" data, parents who drop their kids at the border in hopes of using them to eventually get into the US. This is a burden to the federal government who is housing, feeding and schooling these children until states and counties can find sponsors.
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/grant-fundi ... sors-state
The "unaccompanied children" is nothing new. During the great immigration waves of the nineteenth century there were many children sent to the new world without parents. some were orphans others sent by the parents.
NegativeApproach wrote: Fuck Harris and her "do not come" bullshit.

Every single one of us posting on here likely is at least 1/2 immigrant, probably 100% immigrant. For Harris and Biden to pretend otherwise and to try to keep people out during a humanitarian disaster is immoral.
I agree unless you are a full blood Native American, you have the blood of immigrants flowing through your body. Even the Native Americans are immigrants, just many thousands of years earlier. The immigrants are what made the United States what is is today the melting pot of cultures. We should enjoy that and not be so stiff necked. For those that are the right wing white nationalist and deny this fact and the facts of CRT, I say to them," You're a Putz or a Schmuck! :D
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

6
Sure everyone is a immigrant here including Native Americans, they came originally from Asia.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747#1

Yes there were unaccompanied children in the past, but they had to get on a ship and travel to the US and could get deported at Ellis Island, Angel Island...or any port of entry. Unaccompanied children could get raped or molested on the voyage across or end up in orphanages. The difference now is that unaccompanied children just walk across the border.

Open borders, that's a popular political issue for 2022. :sarcasm:
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

7
highdesert wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 1:08 pm Sure everyone is a immigrant here including Native Americans, they came originally from Asia.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747#1

Yes there were unaccompanied children in the past, but they had to get on a ship and travel to the US and could get deported at Ellis Island, Angel Island...or any port of entry. Unaccompanied children could get raped or molested on the voyage across or end up in orphanages. The difference now is that unaccompanied children just walk across the border.

Open borders, that's a popular political issue for 2022. :sarcasm:
Everyone is an immigrant for sure, depends when. My grandmother’s haplogroup was more common among native North Americans than in Finland. We need immigration reform and we need to stop messing with other country’s economies. The immigration across our southern border is a mess we created. I’d add we created the current mess in Afghanistan as well.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

8
On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court announced a consequential decision that amounted to an aggressive assertion of judicial authority against President Joe Biden.

In a four-sentence order, the justices left in place a lower court's injunction preventing the Biden administration from ending Donald Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy, which left many asylum-seekers unable to enter the United States as their cases proceed through the long and arduous process. Essentially, the court is saying Biden has to continue to Trump's policy because he didn't end it in the right way. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by Trump, had previously ordered Biden to continue the policy on the grounds that the decision to reverse it was "arbitrary and capricious." The Supreme Court has upheld that procedural move, which is now expected to stay in place as the litigation proceeds.

The initial ruling and the injunction were highly criticized when they came down, with many critics arguing that they represented extreme overreach by a conservative judge trying to undermine a politically opposed administration. Vox's Ian Millhiser said Judge Kacsmaryk didn't even understand the law he referenced:

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's opinion in Texas was wrong for many reasons, including that he completely misread federal immigration law. Kacsmaryk wrote that a 1996 federal law only gives "the government two options vis-à-vis aliens seeking asylum: (1) mandatory detention; or (2) return to a contiguous territory." Federal immigration law actually gives immigration officials several options, including granting "parole into the United States" to individual immigrants or releasing the immigrant on "bond of at least $1,500."
...
The most obvious stakes in this case are whether thousands of migrants will be forced to live in harrowing conditions — without "stable access to housing, income, and safety," according to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — because of an egregious misreading of federal law.
...
Remain in Mexico was implemented in early 2019, and effectively suspended in March 2020, because the government imposed stricter, temporary border restrictions in order to reduce the spread of Covid-19. Thus, Kacsmaryk's opinion rests on the improbable claim that a federal law enacted in 1996 requires the government to implement a policy that was only in effect for 14 months, and that wasn't implemented until nearly a quarter-century after the 1996 law took effect.
Now, the Supreme Court's conservatives have said that the judge's injunction will remain in place, fulfilling Milhiser's fears. All three liberal justices on the court dissented from the decision, though there was no written opinion of the court nor any dissents.

"The applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious," the order said. It cited the 2020 decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, in which the court ruled that the Trump administration couldn't end the DACA program that protected undocumented immigrants who had come to the U.S. as children from deportation. Chief Justice John Roberts had been the lone conservative in the majority in that ruling.

"Absolute insanity. SCOTUS' conservative majority repeatedly cleared away lower court injunctions so that Trump could implement his immigration agenda. Now it lets a single district court judge dictate foreign policy for the Biden administration. This is beyond outrageous," said Slate's Mark Joseph stern.

Many critics echoed the point that the court was generally deferential to the Trump administration on immigration and foreign policy. It left in place Trump's ban on migrants from Muslim countries, despite clear evidence that it was inspired by racist animus.

In this case, the Justice Department argued that the Remain in Mexico policy involves the president's engagement with foreign countries, which the court has generally concluded should be largely protected from judicial interference. But now the right-wing majority has abandoned those concerns.

Stern noted that the court's demands of the executive branch may not even be possible: "I have no idea how the Biden administration can negotiate a revival of Remain in Mexico immediately. No one does. It may be impossible. Set aside the immense suffering that the conservative justices just inflicted on migrants. From a geopolitical standpoint, this is demented."

"This was the first test of whether a conservative Supreme Court majority would follow the same rules it did under Trump when it comes to immigration and the President—and they have failed the test. This is a political torpedo aimed directly at the Biden administration," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a lawyer at the American Immigration Council. "The lower courts got dozens of facts wrong, wildly misstated the law, and ordered the Executive to torpedo delicate foreign relations—and the Supreme Court, which until Biden took office blocked nearly all immigration injunctions when requested by the DOJ, just let them do it."

The end result of tonight’s decision will be dollars in the pockets of the cartels, a renewed human rights catastrophe, and hundreds if not thousands of kidnappings, rapes, tortures, and other miseries enacted against vulnerable people only seeking safety.
https://www.alternet.org/2021/08/suprem ... in-mexico/

The SCOTUS didn't even write a legal decision on this as to why they voted this way. I realize this is a hard thing for the conservative branch of the court to do when their crayons and sharpies were all used up by the Orange Turd.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

9
The bummer about all this is one has to "show up".
Is seeking asylum legal?
Yes, seeking asylum is legal—even during a pandemic. Asylum seekers must be in the U.S. or at a port of entry (an airport or an official land crossing) to apply for, or request the opportunity to apply for, asylum. "There’s no way to ask for a visa or any type of authorization in advance for the purpose of seeking asylum,” says Byrne. “You just have to show up.
https://www.rescue.org/article/it-legal ... eek-asylum
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

12
wooglin wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 4:30 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Wed Aug 25, 2021 11:53 am
I agree unless you are a full blood Native American, you have the blood of immigrants flowing through your body.
Africans brought as slaves weren’t immigrants. Just saying.
Forced immigration, as history has shown us many times over the centuries.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Supreme Court Blocks Biden Administration’s Attempt To End ‘Remain In Mexico’ Policy

15
The court’s brief unsigned order said that the administration had appeared to act arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program, citing a decision last year refusing to let the Trump administration rescind the Obama-era program protecting the young immigrants known as dreamers.

The court’s three more liberal members — Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — said they would have granted a stay of the trial judge’s ruling. They did not give reasons. The case will now be heard by an appeals court and may return to the Supreme Court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/24/us/p ... exico.html
BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. TEXAS, ET AL.

The application for a stay presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied. The applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious. See Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (slip op., at 9-12, 17-26).

Our order denying the Government’s request for a stay of the District Court injunction should not be read as affecting the construction of that injunction by the Court of Appeals. Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would
grant the application.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_2d9g.pdf
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TrueTexan and 2 guests