The point of having to apply for asylum outside the U.S. really should remain in place permanently, rather than allowing them in when most will not qualify, but, it will take years to adjudicate, and a good chunk will simply disappear into the U.S.
Supreme court blocks Biden from lifting Covid-era border restrictions
The US supreme court on Monday said Covid-era restrictions at the US-Mexico border that were set to end on Wednesday should stay in place, at least temporarily, as a Republican legal challenge moves forward.
The development came just as the White House had been attempting to prepare for an increase in the number of migrant crossings, even as some border cities were struggling to cope with undocumented people arriving and being obliged to sleep on the streets in freezing weather, especially El Paso in west Texas in recent months.
John Roberts, the chief justice of the court, on Monday, at the request of Republican officials in 19 states, blocked the Biden administration from ending a pandemic-era policy of rapidly expelling most migrants apprehended or turning themselves in at the US-Mexico border .
The Republican officials led by the attorneys general in Arizona and Louisiana asked the supreme court to act after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to put on hold a judge’s ruling last month that invalidated an emergency order known as Title 42. The policy was set to expire Wednesday.
A group of Republican-led states sought to overturn last month’s ruling by intervening in a case originally brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of migrants denied entry under the Title 42 public health rule.
The supreme court gave the parties in the legal dispute until Tuesday at 5pm ET to respond.
This has given many of the pro-illegal alien activists a serious case of heartburn. Of course, a goodly chunk of them never have to actually deal with the fallout of their policies.
Title 42’s originally-stated aim was to slow the spread of Covid-19 and was issued in March 2020 under Donald Trump, the Republican former US president, which proved to be an effective anti-immigration tool in line with his swath of hardline policies.
And it helped.
The rule has ended up being kept it in place by the Biden administration, amid policy and legal wrangling in Washington, and despite the protests of pressure groups that Title 42 is not an appropriate health measure and has caused widespread humanitarian hardship along the border for migrants fleeing dangerous and desperate circumstances.
No reason Brandon couldn’t extend it, right?
Amid signals that the White House continues to prioritize a message of securing the border and reducing irregular immigration, Jean-Pierre noted that migrants entering unlawfully could still be removed via other means even if eventually Title 42 goes away.
But, the Brandon admin has not been using most of those tools. Deportations are way down.
Teach I may be mistaken but
I do not think that it is “illegal”. To cross the border and ask for asylum
Exactly what law is broken ?
That would be 8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien. Why ask a rhetorical question when the answer can be found with 10 seconds of Google search?
A beter question would be, If a president swears “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” and those duties include enforcement of the nation’s laws and then deliberately fails to do so, is that impeachable?
Professor, I’m not sure Brandon’s blinding incompetence rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, but then the D’s impeached Trump, twice, for much less. Something could probably be turned up.
Trump attempted to coerce a foreign country into assisting in the 2020 election (Impeachment #1).
Trump attempted to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election (Impeachment #2).
In both cases audiotapes were recorded.
“In both cases audiotapes were recorded”
Oddly, I can’t find those tapes anywhere. Can you guide me to the site where they are available, please? I can’t figure out how I can miss these incriminating tapes considering the hours and hours I spend weekly on CNN, FOX and the internet. But I sincerely hope you can direct me.
With dementia, corrupt Joe killing our country it is sad Trump did not succeed.
UnkleC,
I was referring not to high crimes and misdemeanors but more along the lines of failure to perform. obviously the Framers of the constitution envisioned the possibility of a President being unable to perform due to incapacity and make provision for his removal. They reasoned that the nation should not have a chief executive who could not perform his duties. They further established the oath of office to make the incumbednt SWEAR a sacred oath to perform the duties of his office. They did not envision that anyone would be so dishonorable as to swear an oath and then publicly and notoriously fail to perform his duties, AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY. They were still heady with creating a system of checks and balances and could not envision the system they were creating would result in a class of people today who are above the law, shameless, and beholding to no higher authority.
I agree with your premise, Professor.
The Founders most likely never envisioned a situation like we have currently.
Considering that the D’s have lowered the bar for impeachment to a point where ordering the wrong sandwich for lunch is impeachable, the Brandon Crime Syndicate is certainly impeachable and most likely worthy of some prison time.
Hairy you are mistaken. No, you’ve been repeating that shit for a year now and you have been corrected many times. Now you are just plain ignorantly wrong. Entry into any country without a legal passport (visa) including the US is illegal. Massive entry is an invasion.
This is where you radical leftists screw up. Common sense dictates if countries require visas to enter then to enter without a visa is illegal. It’s really not hard Hairy unless you’re being deliberately obtuse. Are you deliberately obtuse Hairy?
Surprizing that the SCOTUS would weigh in on this. It seems pretty clear.
Conservatives justices (now the majority) normally can be counted on to obey the clear language of the laws in question if the laws themselves are constitutional. In this case, the law is expiring. It would be a real stretch to make a claim that the expiration of ANY law is unconstitutional.
Courts (including the SCOTUS) normally only approve an injunction when there is a reasonable chance that the basic claim will prevail in court. That seems highly unlikely in this case.