You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce 'Remain in Mexico' policy
2020-03-12
Sure, "Open Borders" in a time of transnational pandemic. Trump should "never let a crisis go to waste", to Alinskey a phrase
More about this story from yesterday.
[Hill] The Supreme Court announced on Wednesday that the Trump administration may enforce a policy that requires asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico.

The justices will allow the "Remain in Mexico" policy to continue while the administration appeals a lower court ruling which deemed the program illegal and ordered a suspension that was scheduled to take effect Thursday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only justice to publicly dissent from the decision to allow the policy to continue.
The self-proclaimed (without evidence) "Wise Latinaâ„¢"
Known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols, the policy aims to curb entry into the U.S. by asylum-seekers, many of whom are Central American migrants. More than 60,000 asylum-seekers have been barred from entry since the program was implemented just over a year ago, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The program has been used to "process tens of thousands of aliens applying for asylum ... without the need to detain the applicants in the United States during the weeks and months it takes to process their applications," read a court filing that DHS submitted to the justices last week.

Critics of the Trump administration policy say it's a cruel measure that endangers the lives of those fleeing violence and other hardships.

A federal district court in California last April ruled that the policy violates U.S. immigration law and contravenes international human rights norms. The court ordered the administration to stop the practice along the entire U.S. border.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court's legal ruling, but the appellate court narrowed the injunction to apply to California and Arizona, the two border states under its jurisdiction.

The injunction, which was scheduled to take effect Thursday, would have affected those two states, but would not have applied to New Mexico or Texas.

The White House hailed the Supreme Court's move on Wednesday.

"Today's order from the Supreme Court is a major victory for the Trump Administration. By allowing the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) to remain in effect, the Court has prevented dangerous chaos at the southern border, avoided a significant escalation in public health threats, and mitigated damage to foreign relations," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a statement.
Related:
Remain in Mexico: 2020-03-04 States Can Prosecute Illegal Aliens For Identity Theft, SCOTUS Rules
Remain in Mexico: 2020-02-29 Federal court temporarily halts Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy UPDATE: on hold for Supreme Court appeal
Remain in Mexico: 2020-02-08 Seventy-five percent of illegal immigrants skip deportation hearings, hiding out in US
Related:
Migrant Protection Protocols: 2020-03-07 Pentagon Sends Troops to US Border
Migrant Protection Protocols: 2020-02-29 Federal court temporarily halts Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy UPDATE: on hold for Supreme Court appeal
Migrant Protection Protocols: 2020-01-31 U.S. has begun sending Brazilian migrants to Mexico to await U.S. court hearings
Posted by:Frank G

#3  Open borders.

Repeat, and just consider the earth-shaking, surreal stupidity of our pre-Trump elites: one party's presidential candidates vowed to open our southern third-world border to unrestrained immigration without visas or controls.

These criminally incompetent morons are the self-described "resistance" to OrangeMan.

Truly, we dodged a bullet.
Posted by: Lex   2020-03-12 12:00  

#2  8-1. So even Ruthie voted to stop this stupidity? There may be hope.
Posted by: Tom   2020-03-12 11:35  

#1  How about an amendment: a judge overruled by Supreme 3 times is out?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2020-03-12 02:49  

00:00