Become a Clash Insider!
Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.
Have you noticed a pattern in the difference between how judges ruled on Trump’s policies compared to how they rule on Biden’s?
Trump knew his orders and policies would have to stand up to court challenges by any number of #Resist movement sympathizers, so he did his homework beforehand to make them as bulletproof as possible.
Joe, like Obama before him, wasn’t nearly so careful about such things… as we can see by a judicial ruling against Obama’s DACA, and Joe already having several courts rule against his administrations’ policies.
The latest judge to rule against him targeted Biden’s cancellation of Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy.
In his 53-page opinion, Kacsmaryk said the memo Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued in June to formally end the Remain in Mexico policy violated federal administrative law. Kacsmaryk found that Mayorkas failed to consider the program’s “benefits,” which he said included the deterrence effect the policy had on migrants who don’t qualify for U.S. refuge.
Kacsmaryk also determined the reversal of the Trump-era border policy led the Biden administration to violate a section of U.S. immigration law that mandates the detention of certain asylum-seekers, since there’s currently not enough detention capacity to hold all of them.
Friday’s ruling is a victory for Texas and Missouri, which filed the lawsuit against the suspension of the Remain in Mexico rule, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, or MPP.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling found that Texas and Missouri are being harmed by the policy’s reversal because migrants released into the U.S. will use health care services and apply for driver’s licenses, and their children will attend U.S. schools. —CBSNews
Why is this ruling important?
Because it was this same remain in Mexico policy that gave Trump a way to thread the needle with several competing priorities — obeying the court ruling about a maximum time to hold illegal immigrant children, the goal of keeping families intact and the security obligation of not turning large numbers of unvetted foreigners into the general population while they await a court date for which they might never show up.
Since they are not in the country, they are not a security risk. Since they are not a security risk, families can remain intact.
Additionally, since it didn’t grant all comers a free pass into the country where they could start earning US dollars on the sly while they await their court date, it eliminated a big part of the incentives motivating people to bypass the lawful process of applying for asylum at a lawful port of entry.
The deterrent effect resulted in fewer would-be migrants being taken advantage of by criminal cartels, human traffickers as well as fewer running the gauntlet of the other dangers associated with getting involved with coyotes or facing the natural hazards of illegally crossing the US/Mexico border off the table.
Those advantages help national security and protect the lives and dignity of many would-be migrants. But as wonderful as those advantages are, they do not fit with the Democrats’ crass political reasons for wanting open borders agenda, do they?
