This Issue: Biden can end Remain In Mexico policy, says 5-4 Supreme Court
Fri,
Jul. 1th
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the Biden Administration does not have to continue a program that requires asylum applicants to remain in Mexico while their cases are considered.
The "Remain In Mexico" program was the most effective tool used by the Trump Administration to end chaos at the border and greatly reduce the massive flows of foreign citizens fraudulently claiming asylum to gain access to U.S. jobs.
When the Biden Administration announced it was ending the program officially called the Migrant Protection Protocols, Missouri and Texas, fearing the costs of large numbers of asylum-claimants being released into their jurisdictions, sued to force the continuation of the program.
The states won in a lower federal court but were turned down this week by Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer.
Penning the ruling, Chief Justice Roberts said the 1996 law authorizing the program does not require officials to return migrants to Mexico after they have arrived at the border and claimed asylum. Instead, he said, the law simply gives the government the option to do so, noting the use of the word "may" in the statute.
The dissenters were Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas.
NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks immediately issued this statement to the nation's media:
"NumbersUSA is disappointed that the majority in Biden v. Texas appears to ignore the fact that immigration law gives the government three choices when it comes to inadmissible aliens and asylum seekers:
(1) detain them during the removal process or asylum adjudication;
(2) return them to a contiguous country; or
(3) parole them on a case-by-case basis.
That the majority allows the government to pick a fourth option -- mass release into the United States -- enables the Biden Administration's non-enforcement of immigration law."
Justice Alito expressed the same concerns about the lawlessness of the Administration being allowed to choose an option that is not supposed to be available to it. He agreed that the government can choose not to make asylum claimants wait in Mexico but only if it is detaining them in the U.S. while their cases are considered. But he said the Biden Administration is violating the law by deciding to "simply release into the country untold numbers of aliens" who very likely would eventually be denied asylum and ordered removed -- if they actually show up for their hearings.
Alito said the Administration's release of hundreds of thousands of uninvited foreign nationals into U.S. communities without having their claims reviewed . . .
". . . violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way."
Andrew Arthur, a retired immigration judge, argued in the New York Post that Thursday's ruling is not the final word and . . .
".. . leaves it to the lower courts to determine whether the law requires illegal migrants to be detained and to assess whether Congress has placed restrictions on the administration's authority to release illegal migrants on parole and, if so, what those restrictions entail. Congressional Republicans hostile to the president's border policy will have their say on these issues if they gain control in November, too. Thursday's Supreme Court opinion is a setback to the states, but it's far from the last word on Biden's border policies."
|
