A Federal Court in the United States Has Denied Biden’s Request to Halt the “Remain in Mexico” Program

Remain in Mexico
Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit

On Thursday, a federal judge temporarily halted an effort by the Biden administration to terminate a program that has been in place since the Trump administration and required asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for their immigration court hearings.

US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas put a hold on the firing until the legal challenges brought by Texas and Missouri are resolved. However, he did not order that the policy be brought back into effect. It was not immediately obvious how the effect will affect the program.

Following the announcement of the verdict, the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, tweeted, “It’s a common sense policy to prevent individuals from entering our nation illegally.” “Texas prevails once again, for the time being.”
The verdict may prove to be a short-term obstacle for the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, which may choose to appeal.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email asking for a comment that was sent to them.

A regulation that went into effect in January 2019 mandated that around 70,000 people seeking asylum in the United States be made to wait for their hearings in Mexico. President Donald Trump was responsible for implementing this policy.

On his first day in office, President Biden banned the program, citing the fact that it “goes against everything we stand for as a country of immigrants.” He claimed this policy “goes against everything we stand for as a nation of immigrants.”

That set in motion a legal and administrative process that was drawn out and difficult.

The directive to bring back the policy in 2021 came from Kacsmaryk, who was appointed to his position in Amarillo by Trump. After reaching an agreement with Mexico over the modifications and additions that were requested, the Biden administration complied with the ruling. However, the policy was not enforced to a large extent, and only a few thousand individuals were sent back to Mexico to wait there.

In a ruling that was handed down in June by a majority of 5 to 4, the United States Supreme Court decided that Vice President Biden has the authority to terminate what are formally referred to as Migrant Protection Protocols. One of the most important questions, however, was sent to Kacsmaryk, and that was whether or not the conduct taken by the administration was “arbitrary and capricious,” and thus whether or not it violated the federal statute that governs the creation of rules.

In his 35-page ruling, the judge stated that it was likely an administration memo from October 2021 that was the administration’s latest effort to nail down termination of the policy did indeed appear to violate the law. This was the administration’s latest attempt to nail down termination of the policy.

According to the judgement, the administration did not take into account a number of important factors, including the potential advantages of the strategy, such as a decrease in illegal immigration and “unmeritorious asylum petitions.”

Critics argued the program was cruel because it put migrants at risk of horrific violence in Mexico and made it far more difficult for them to have access to counsel. Trump made the policy a central component of his border enforcement efforts.

According to Kacsmaryk, the document from the Biden administration described the circumstances that migrants can experience when they are in Mexico, but it did not include the difficulties that migrants confront “while making the risky voyage to the southern border.”

Share This Article:

Share on linkedin
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on reddit

Related Posts