Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy

[shockedcanadian]

The illegal violations at your border just received permission to continue. A win for Mexico and Honduras.

Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy

The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to continue the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy, after lower courts ruled that it did.

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration can repeal the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, reversing a lower court ruling.

Under that policy, migrants seeking entry into the U.S. had to stay in Mexico as they awaited hearings. The Trump administration put the policy in place so that migrants would not be released into the U.S. The Biden administration had tried to repeal the policy but was previously blocked by a lower court.

At issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security's suspension and subsequent termination of the policy violated a federal law that requires that migrants be detained or, if they arrived from a contiguous country, sent back.


The key statute is 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, part of which says someone applying for admission "shall be detained for a proceeding" unless they are "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," and part of which says if they are from a contiguous territory like Mexico, "the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory" as they await a hearing.

 

[pknopp]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

 

[1srelluc]

A small bone when compared to the EPA ruling.

Much REEEEEEing will follow for years to come with that one.....Half of it from congress since they will be forced to legislate now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

They're not "seeking asylum"

 

[pknopp]

They're not "seeking asylum"

They are. If you want to sneak in, you do so. If you wish to come legally you come to the border crossings. I should note, you can even sneak in and seek asylum.

Businesses won't be as willing to hire you though.

These are people trying to legally come here. Otherwise you sneak in.

 

[SweetSue92]

The illegal violations at your border just received permission to continue.

Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy

The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to continue the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy, after lower courts ruled that it did.

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration can repeal the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, reversing a lower court ruling.

Under that policy, migrants seeking entry into the U.S. had to stay in Mexico as they awaited hearings. The Trump administration put the policy in place so that migrants would not be released into the U.S. The Biden administration had tried to repeal the policy but was previously blocked by a lower court.

At issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security's suspension and subsequent termination of the policy violated a federal law that requires that migrants be detained or, if they arrived from a contiguous country, sent back.


The key statute is 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, part of which says someone applying for admission "shall be detained for a proceeding" unless they are "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," and part of which says if they are from a contiguous territory like Mexico, "the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory" as they await a hearing.

It's an EO overturning an EO. I don't like the result, but I would expect a highly Constitutional court to rule this way.

Like everything Biden touches, this will turn to crap for him. The press of humanity at the border is not popular. So he got his "win"--but politically it's a huge loser.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

They aren't handing Biden a victory.

The destruction of our sovereignty is being conducted at a level far above his pay grade.

 

[JGalt]

A small bone when compared to the EPA ruling.

Much REEEEEEing will follow for years to come with that one.....Half of it from congress since they will be forced to legislate now.

The decision just shows how gracious those conservatives are by giving Breyer his retirement present.

What a bunch of decent guys! And girls.

 

[iceberg]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

asylum has very specific conditions. fear of life for political persecution.

99% of those going for asylum are immigration cases, not asylum. but as usual, we redefine things to fit an emotional purpose.

 

[shockedcanadian]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

They can seek asylum, they just have to wait on the Mexican side so that they don't skip court and become one of the 20M other illegals in your country. Is the protection of your sovereignty offensive to you?

 

[pknopp]

asylum has very specific conditions. fear of life for political persecution.

Which one can not rule on until they have had their hearing as laid out in the Constitution and our laws.

99% of those going for asylum are immigration cases, not asylum. but as usual, we redefine things to fit an emotional purpose.

Even if true, they still get a hearing.

 

[iceberg]

They can seek asylum, they just have to wait on the Mexican side so that they don't skip court and become one of the 20M other illegals in your country. Is the protection of your sovereignty offensive to you?

now biden is simply deleting the cases, granting amnesty more or less.

 

[pknopp]

They can seek asylum, they just have to wait on the Mexican side so that they don't skip court and become one of the 20M other illegals in your country. Is the protection of your sovereignty offensive to you?

The Constitution is. Nowhere in the Constitution or our laws does it state anywhere what you claim.

 

[okfine]

WINNING!

 

[JGalt]

Which one can not rule on until they have had their hearing as laid out in the Constitution and our laws.



Even if true, they still get a hearing.

Where does it say in the Constitution and bylaws of the US, that foreigners can illegally cross our borders?

That's an invasion by any definition of the term. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Naturalization Clause grants Congress the responsibility to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization”. It determines the way in which an immigrant can become a citizen of the U.S.

Sneaking across the US border is in no way a "uniform rule."

 

[Meister]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

If there wasn't any abuse with this rule, there wouldn't be an issue. But having millions cross the boarder seeking
asylum when less than let's say 10% is legit. I have a problem with that. Can't wait for the change of the presidential
regime. Biden and his band of thieves are fooling no one who doesn't want to be fooled.

 

[iceberg]

Which one can not rule on until they have had their hearing as laid out in the Constitution and our laws.



Even if true, they still get a hearing.

Who Can Be Granted Asylum In America? | The Law Office of Jason A. Dennis

Asylum is legal protection awarded to foreign citizens already in the U.S. or arriving at the border who meet the refugee definition by International law. According to the United Nations, 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol, a refugee is a person who can't or is unwilling to return to their...

jadennislaw.com

Eligibility for asylum has two simple requirements. First, asylum seekers must establish that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of birth. Second, asylum applicants must prove that they would be persecuted in their home country on account of at least one of five protected grounds: religion, race, political opinion, nationality, or particular social group.
-----
now given we don't really spell out "WHERE" they can do this from, it seems this is up for debate. now, as usual when a process gets flogged to death, we need to look at potential abuse of it.

i think we have it.

when you see a caravan of thousands of people coming at you, hard to believe they are in fear of political persecution and death. ask them they say they want a better life.

we all do.

that's immigration. using a buzzword to get around the system i would call one of those "loopholes" the dems get upset about.

close it.

 

[Flash]

The illegal violations at your border just received permission to continue. A win for Mexico ad Honduras.

Supreme Court hands Biden victory, allows end to 'Remain in Mexico' policy

The Supreme Court ruled that the Department of Homeland Security does not have to continue the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" policy, after lower courts ruled that it did.

www.foxnews.com

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Biden administration can repeal the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy, reversing a lower court ruling.

Under that policy, migrants seeking entry into the U.S. had to stay in Mexico as they awaited hearings. The Trump administration put the policy in place so that migrants would not be released into the U.S. The Biden administration had tried to repeal the policy but was previously blocked by a lower court.

At issue was whether the Department of Homeland Security's suspension and subsequent termination of the policy violated a federal law that requires that migrants be detained or, if they arrived from a contiguous country, sent back.


The key statute is 8 U.S.C. Section 1225, part of which says someone applying for admission "shall be detained for a proceeding" unless they are "clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted," and part of which says if they are from a contiguous territory like Mexico, "the Attorney General may return the alien to that territory" as they await a hearing.

The American people had three major wins with one loss this session.

This was an Executive Order thingy, which is always a two edge sword. In reality it is better to put a check on the Executive Branch. After all, we are not a Kingdom.

This Biden piece of shit may have won this one but it puts a real limit on what he can do when he becomes a Lame Duck President after the midterms. That is a good thing.

 

[1srelluc]

There is nothing illegal about coming here to seek asylum. It is fully laid out in the Constitution. What other Constitutional items do you wish to do away with?

And it was an EO. Following administrations have always been allowed to overturn previous EO's.

Ha! They are economic refugees pure and simple. I don't suspect but maybe 1% are fleeing their CoO due to persecution, if that.

I don't take you as a rube so please have the good grace not to think that I am.

 

[pknopp]

Where does it say in the Constitution and bylaws of the US, that foreigners can illegally cross our borders?

That's an invasion by any definition of the term.

Can I Still Apply for Asylum Even if I Am in the United States Illegally?​

Yes. You may apply for asylum with USCIS regardless of your immigration status if:

• You are not currently in removal proceedings
• You file an asylum application within 1 year of arriving to the United States or demonstrate that you are within an exception to that rule.

I've done this likely 30 times.

Questions and Answers: Affirmative Asylum Eligibility and Applications