WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Biden Administration was dealt a significant blow on Thursday when a federal judge in Texas ruled that the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) instituted by former President Donald Trump – also known as the “Remain in Mexico” program – must stay in-place.
The policy, first implemented by President Donald Trump in 2019, had mandated that migrants seeking entry into the United States could not immediately gain entry into the country; instead, they were forced to wait in Mexico for the date of their hearing.
Efforts on the part of the Biden Administration to end the policy had been blocked by a lower court after a lawsuit brought about by a coalition of red states led by Texas; in August 2021, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s suspension and eventual termination of the policy had violated federal immigration law.
FREE DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION: GET ONLY 'FEATURED' STORIES BY EMAIL
Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Biden Admin was allowed to end MPP; however, the Supreme Court also sent the case back to Kacsmaryk to decide whether or not the Biden Admin violated the Administrative Procedure Act by attempting to end MPP.
On Thursday Kacsmaryk said that the White House did violate the act, and ruled that MPP must remain in effect.
In his decision, Kacsmaryk also cited the undue burdens of crime and other issues that are placed upon border states by releasing illegal migrants into U.S., as opposed to forcing them to await their hearing dates in Mexico.
“Before terminating MPP, Defendants had to thoroughly consider the effect of the termination on mandatory-detention duties…Defendants failed to do so,” he said. “Defendants fail to consider MPP’s impact on human trafficking…Plaintiffs, particularly the state of Texas, shoulder much of the burden of unlawful immigration.”
“By terminating MPP without adequately considering the reliance of States in the control of the flow of aliens (as assisted by MPP),” Kacsmaryk added. “Defendants do not appear to have tied their approach, even if loosely, to the purposes of the immigration laws or the appropriate operation of the immigration system.”