Last night, the Supreme Court declined the Biden administration's request to stay a lower court order requiring the revival of the Trump-era Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), aka "Remain in Mexico," a program that requires certain migrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border to return to Mexico and wait near the border for the duration of their immigration proceedings.
The Biden administration suspended the program shortly after taking office, but Texas and Missouri sued to reinstate it in April. The Supreme Court decision "said the Biden administration had failed to show that it was likely to defeat the claim that the termination of the program was arbitrary and capricious," reports Tierney Sneed of CNN.
In a petition filed with the Court, the administration said the lower court mandate to abruptly reimpose and maintain the program "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," Sneed notes.
This decision will have dire humanitarian consequences. Migrants expelled under MPP faced extremely dangerous conditions, a lack of access to counsel or due process, and serious difficulty returning to the U.S. for their court dates. And conditions remain dangerous: Since the start of the Biden administration, Human Rights First has recorded more than 6,000 attacks against migrants who were turned away at the border.
Reinstating MPP will not lead to a more orderly asylum process or a safer border. Instead, if it is reinstated fully, we will see more suffering and confusion for vulnerable people seeking safety.
Ian Millhiser at Vox has a great explainer on what last night’s decision means. For more context, the Forum also has an in-depth MPP explainer.
Welcome to Wednesday’s edition of Noorani’s Notes. I’m Joanna Taylor, communications manager at the Forum, filling in for Ali today. If you have a story to share from your own community, please send it to me at [email protected].
|
|
A quick ICYMI before we dive in: We hosted a press call yesterday with a national security expert and Afghanistan veteran, refugee resettlement leaders and a policy expert to discuss what the U.S. must do to improve the evacuation of Afghan allies, and underscore the humanitarian and national security imperatives for immediate action.
AFGHAN DEADLINE — Despite pressure for an extension from G7 leaders and advocates, President Biden said Tuesday he’d maintain the Aug.
31 deadline to withdraw from Afghanistan, a team at CNN reports. While the Pentagon says it plans to evacuate all remaining Americans in the country by next week, the fate of thousands of Afghan allies is less clear. "Damn the deadline," Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska) said before Biden announced his decision, per NBC News. "Americans want us to stay until we get our people out, and so do our allies. ... Mr. President, tell the Taliban we're getting our people out however long it takes and that we're perfectly willing to spill Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS blood to do
it." Meanwhile, DHS announced Tuesday that it would offer some Afghan evacuees humanitarian parole, following a rigorous security check, to enter the U.S. while they wait for their Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applications to be processed, Morgan Chalfant and Rebecca Beitsch report for The Hill.
NONGOVERNMENT NETWORK — Without a clear plan from the administration, a "network of veterans, private sector workers, human rights activists and other volunteers" are working desperately to evacuate friends and family from
Afghanistan. In an op-ed for The New York Times, Angeles-based community
organizer Arash Azizzada details some of these efforts: "We’re figuring out what Taliban checkpoints to avoid and what gate at the airport is the most accessible, if any are. We’re raising money, millions of dollars overnight, to charter planes. We’re endlessly compiling spreadsheets with information about Afghans who are under threat from the Taliban. We’re doing this because the American government isn’t."
DEADLY CROSSING — An increase in migration to the U.S.-Mexico border comes with a grim counterpart: an increase in deaths in the desert. For The New York Times, Simon Romero talks to Sheriff Oscar E. Carrillo in West Texas’ Culberson County, who has found the bodies of 19 migrants this year alone. "I used to request regular stuff like bulletproof vests," said Carillo, whose 10-person department is overwhelmed trying to identify victims and locate their families. "Now I’m asking for more body bags." As of July, Border Patrol officials alone had found 383 migrants dead this fiscal year — the highest number in almost a decade. "‘All these bodies are deserving of an investigation,’ [Carillo] said, calling the dead migrants ‘esta pobre gente inocente’ — poor innocent people."
RACIST ORIGINS — In a "momentous judicial acknowledgment of the plainly racist and nativist underpinnings of laws," U.S. District Judge Miranda Du recently ruled that a law criminalizing re-entry to the U.S. after deportation "is unconstitutional because it’s explicitly racist in its origins," Hassan Kanu writes in an opinion column for Reuters. Judge Du’s ruling is "a rare admission by
the courts that foundational elements of the federal immigration machinery — enforcement processes we now take for granted — actually clash with constitutional equal protection guarantees," Kanu writes. For NBC News, Char Adams spoke with Black immigrants about how disparities in the immigration system impact their lives: "Black immigrants are constantly profiled," said Yoliswa Cele, UndocuBlack’s national director of narrative and media. "... Black immigrants also have the highest visa denial rates. Black immigrants are more likely, when they are detained, to be put in solitary confinement. We bear the brunt of all the consequences
that happen, all the xenophobia in this country."
Thanks for
reading,
Joanna
|
|