SCOTUS: Biden Can End ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy
Kavanaugh: “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings.”
SCOTUS ruled 5-4 that the Biden administration can end the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), otherwise known as the Remain in Mexico policy.
Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority.
This is NOT Title 42, which is all about COVID-19.
MPP said that “certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings under section 1229a of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).”
Texas and Missouri sued the Biden administration when it announced MPP would end on June 1, 2021. The states claimed the order “violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The Northern District of Texas pointed to Section 1225 of the INA:
The court first concluded that terminating MPP would violate the INA, reasoning that section 1225 of the INA “provides the government two options” with respect to illegal entrants: mandatory detention pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(A) or contiguous-territory return pursuant to section 1225(b)(2)(C). 554 F. Supp. 3d 818, 852. Because the Government was unable to meet its mandatory detention obligations under section 1225(b)(2)(A) due to resource constraints, the court reasoned, terminating MPP would necessarily lead to the systemic violation of section 1225 as illegal entrants were released into the United States. Second, the District Court concluded that the June 1 Memorandum was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The District Court vacated the June 1 Memorandum and remanded to DHS. It also imposed a nationwide injunction ordering the Government to “enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all aliens subject to mandatory detention under [section 1225] without releasing any aliens because of a lack of detention resources.” Id., at 857 (emphasis in original).
DHS tried to explain its reasoning to terminate MPP in an October 29 memorandum.
The five justices determined MPP does not violate section 1225 of the INA or the APA.
Roberts wrote a long-winded opinion, but Kavanaugh’s stuck out to me.
The laws we have only give DHS two options, Kavaugh pointed out. DHS can “grant noncitizens parole into the United States if parole provides a ‘significant public benefit.'” DHS can also “choose to return noncitizens to Mexico.”
“In general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both the parole option and the return-to-Mexico option are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes,” wrote Kavanaugh. “As the recent history illustrates, every President since the late 1990s has employed the parole option, and President Trump also employed the return-to-Mexico option for a relatively small group of noncitizens. Because the immigration statutes afford substantial discretion to the Executive, different Presidents may exercise that discretion differently. That is Administrative Law 101. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 59 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).”
Kavanaugh reminded everyone that SCOTUS does “not have the authority to end the legislative stalemate or to resolve the underlying policy problems.”
In other words, get your act together, Congress: “The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings.”
BIDEN ET AL. v. TEXAS ET AL. by Mary Elizabeth on Scribd
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In reality, SCOTUS did make the lawfully correct decision.
The problem is the POTATUS, RINO’s and Congress on this issue. ( as with most other issues as well)
This one is disappointing.
Yes it is but not unexpected
I’m disappointed, but I understand the grounds.
Too much immigration discretion has been delegated to the executive and it’s led to an inconsistant mess.
I look at is as a honey-trap, cleverly decided to encourage more of the arrogant Democrat overreach that is going to lose them the next two elections.
I am beginning to wonder if the current thought isn’t actually “backwards” and we have had the wool pulled over on us.
Could it be that the RINO globalists are actually the puppet masters ( hiding in the dark as the puppet masters pretending to be controlled opposition as required) and the LEFT are just placeholders with big mouths and highly animated so we never look past them to see the real picture?
You may be on to something. The rino globalist hacks are doing a pretty good job of convincing people who should know better (MAGA voters) that Ukraine is worth destroying our economy over by imposing sanctions that haven’t yet detected Russia while raising prices for energy, food, rare earth minerals, fertilizer…..
Now you’re cooking with gas.
I have been saying this for years, the marxist democrat party is not our problem. It’s the marxist republicans that are our problem.
I don’t know who the top dog is pulling the strings. I have my suspicions that it;s a combination of defense contractors (Pay attention to Eisenhower) and companies like Blackrock, and they use marxists like Obama to control it all. The entire apparatus of the federal government has been weaponized against the American people.
Wholesale house cleaning is the only solution.
‘Asylum’ is a fucking joke at this point.
Seriously, talk to anybody that works on the border.
Every. SINGLE. Illegal. spews the same bullshit, ‘seeking asylum’, ‘in fear of my life’.
In many cases, it’s LITERALLY THE ONLY ENGLISH THEY KNOW.
Another recurring theme from CT this term – legislatures should legislate and when doing so the legislature must make it’s intent clear. In this case we have options for the executive provided by Congress. The Trump WH chose one way and the Biden WH chose another.
Don’t let your Sen and HoR off the hook when they offer up timid excuses that SCOTUS has ruled and tied our hands. It’s not true. Congress can modify the statute to preclude the option of parole to the interior entirely.
Congress can modify the discretion to grant parole to impose a list of non discretionary actions to be performed or impose a set of non discretionary criteria that must be met before parole is granted.
All true but it again boils down to this.
The RINO is ultimately responsible for this. (House and Senate)
Be honest with yourself.
The “left” seldom outright lies when it comes to their goals, agenda, purpose and intent. You see the wolf and recognize it as such. They make little attempt to hide anything. (when it comes to executing them, that’s a different thing)
Its the RINO who runs on a platform of fixing things and bringing justice and pretends to uphold true American values but sells us out every time.
Remember, the Left didn’t just pass red flag laws- the RINO’s did.
Trump tied to fix immigration- the RINOs stopped him
Many tried to investigate election theft, in most cases the RINO’s stopped it.
How many people did Trey and Lindsey “bring to justice”?
How many bills to repeal Ocare did they send to Trump to sign? ( didn’t a RINO save it?)
Don’t let the RINO’s hide from their own actions.
I agree.
Don’t let your Rep or Sen off the hook with BS excuses. Especially when r eventually regain control of the WH and both houses of Congress.
If they won’t act then find a primary challenger, fund them and work your ass off to get them elected.
Disaster
Just a freaking disaster
Too true. Entirely too true. The dementia patient can now let every last one of them in.
We will now be known as Meximerica.
That’s what we are whether we are called that or not.
Roberts always Roberts
He’s just doing what he’s paid to do (plus he doesn’t want all the Lolita Express videos put on YouTube)
And I’m pretty sure George Bush is happy with how Roberts is doing.
“Best thing I ever did was put Roberts on the Supreme Court. My Mama is so proud of me. It’s a shame my little brother didn’t get to be president. He would’ve put two or three “Roberts” on the Court.”
“…certain non-Mexican nationals arriving by land from Mexico were returned to Mexico to await the results of their removal proceedings.”
The problem is not the “remain in Mexico policy.” The problem is letting them cross the border in the first place.
Abbot should his authority as Governor to call out the militia to repel the invasion: no need for facilities.
In fact, international law states they claim asylum in the first country they come to NOT when they hit the US.
Which law? I’m not aware of any international law or agreement that mandates asylum claims must be made in the first safe country.
Individual countries may reject asylum requests on the grounds that the claimant arrived from a safe country, but that’s their national law being applied, not a consequence of international ones.
Trust me, I’d love there to be an international law, so that all the illegal immigrants crossing the Channel could be shipped straight back to France.
In Europe covered by the Dublin III regulation agreement of the EU. In N America Canada and the US agreed to this in the Safe Third Country Agreement. The US, Mexico and N Triangle Nations informally agreed to use that as the basis for their approach to asylum claims.
A “guideline” and “best practice” but not an actual law enforced by treaty or mandating compliance.
Thats a distinction with a difference given the word games the left plays
Absolutely correct. An informal framework revolving around a best practice or guideline isn’t ironclad.
Which is why we should always
1. Resist modifications to definitions
2. Use language that accurately conveys meaning
3. Insist our political opponents do the same
4. Insist the media and policy opinion makers or influencers do the same
5. Resist the temptation to over or under emphasize what is reality v what we wish it is or worse yet project our bias into the discussion or allow our opponents to do so. (A long winded way of expressing the need for reading comprehension, logical thought and critical analysis).
There are people who claim that is “International Law” but no such law exists.
Even if it did, it would be unenforceable against US Sovereignty.
Remember, the left is both openly ignoring and actively violating our laws- that’s not the same as saying it isn’t against the law. Also remember, that the Globalist/RINO is as equally engaged and responsible for this as the left.
Did you hear that Mexicans? You don’t have to remain in Mexico! Come north. There’s still room left in one or two states if you live in 26 people per room.