Select Page

Massive Win In Court, Judge Rules Mexico Illegals Must Remain In Mexico Until Processed

Massive Win In Court, Judge Rules Mexico Illegals Must Remain In Mexico Until Processed

The southern states, and some in the middle of America who were seeing an influx of illegals being bussed to their states after Biden illegally reversed President Trump’s Remain In Mexico Policy, saw a huge court victory when a judge ruled that Biden did not have the authority to reverse this without proper procedures.

In a 53-page opinion, Judge Kacsmaryk, who President Donald Trump appointed, upheld the “Migrant Protection Protocols” (MPP) by the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration. Under the MPP, the “Remain in Mexico” policy returned some migrants to Mexico pending their removal proceedings.

TRENDING: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OP-ED INSISTS CALLING WOMEN ‘FEMALES’ IS ‘DEHUMANIZING’

Judge Kacsmaryk’s opinion laid out the history behind the MPP’s implementation:

B. MPP was created to combat an influx of illegal aliens during the Trump administration

8. In 2018, the southern border of the United States experienced an immigration surge and a resulting “humanitarian and border security crisis.” AR 186; App. 005. Federal officials encountered approximately 2,000 inadmissible aliens each day in 2018. App. 005. By May 2019, that number had increased to 4,800 aliens crossing the border daily. AR 682.

9. The resulting influx of immigrants had “severe impacts on U.S. border security and immigration operations.” App. 302. But most aliens lacked meritorious claims for asylum — “only 14 percent of aliens who claimed credible fear of persecution or torture were granted asylum between Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2019.” App. 005. With so many “fraudulent asylum claims,” “[t]he dramatic increase in illegal migration” was “making it harder for the U.S. to devote appropriate resources to individuals who [were] legitimately fleeing persecution.” App. 302–03.

10. The influx did not just divert resources from legitimate asylum seekers, but illegal aliens with meritless asylum claims were being released into the United States. “[M]any of these individuals . . . disappeared into the country before a judge denie[d] their claim and simply bec[a]me fugitives.” App. 303. “Between Fiscal Year 2008 and Fiscal Year 2019, 32 percent of aliens referred to [the Executive Office for Immigration Review] absconded into the United States and were ordered removed in absentia.” App. 005.

11. In response, the Trump Administration implemented a program known as the Migrant Protection Protocols. On December 20, 2018, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced the MPP program, under which DHS would begin the process of invoking the authority provided at § 1225(b)(2)(C).  This statutory authority allows DHS to return to Mexico certain third-country nationals — i.e., aliens who are not nationals or citizens of Mexico — arriving in the United States from Mexico for the duration of their removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. AR 151.

While the court admitted that parts of Trump’s MPP were with flaws, it was also very effective and stopped much of the mass illegal migration that was being experienced at the time. There were also legal challenges against MPP, but none of them ever made it to court due to the Biden administration first suspending, then (in June 2021) terminated the program.

This, in turn, brought about series of suits by Texas and Missouri against Biden challenging the suspension of the program, which would have to be done with Congress, not just the White House.

Judge Kacsmaryk’s opinion specifically finds that:

  • The termination of MPP increases the number of aliens present in the United States
  • Texas and Missouri have suffered injuries because of the increased numbers of  aliens present in their states

He went further, concluding that the termination of the MPP violated the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) and caused defendants to violates 8 U.S.C. § 1225 (which provides the government with two options as to asylum-seeking aliens — detention or return to a contiguous territory).

The Court ordered Defendants permanently enjoined and restrained from implementing/enforcing the June Memorandum (which terminated the MPP), vacated the June Memorandum and remanded it to the DHS for further consideration, ordered Defendants to enforce and implement MPP in good faith unless/until it is properly rescinded per the APA and Section 1225, ordered monthly reports detailing the number of encounters, expulsions, detention capacity and usage, and asylum applications.  The Order further specifies that the injunction applies nationwide but stayed its application for seven days to allow the government time to seek emergency appellate relief (which it likely will do).

Missouri’s Attorney General, Eric Schmitt, announced the win on Twitter.

TRENDING: PROFESSOR INSISTS U.S. IS ‘ONLY FOR WHITE PEOPLE,’ TALKS ‘REDEMPTION’ WHEN ‘THERE IS NO AMERICA’

The question now will be – “Is the Biden Administration going to do what they did with the Supreme Court ruling that the Eviction moratorium was illegal and ignore the ruling of the court, or will they act and trying to change how immigration is handled?”

Sadly, we think that the far-left control of the White House at this time feels their agenda supersedes the authority of the court or the constitution, so they will most likely ignore this order and act like it never happened.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *