Remain In Mexico’s Fate Resides In Sup Ct

The anti-open border “Remain in Mexico” policy is now before the Supreme Court & the WSJ thinks the “Justices hearing oral arguments have cause to rule that Biden’s cancellation of the Trump-era immigration policy is illegal.” What? Joe would do anything illegal?

Note the editors: “The stakes [in Biden v. Texas] go beyond the border and strike at the heart of the Constitution’s separation of powers.” That’s because Pres Biden on his first day in office directed DHS to “review” the Trump policy &, low & behold, DHS ended it. Asks the WSJ: “Did DHS follow proper administrative procedure and [does] the law let it end the policy?” The answers, the editors opined, “are no and no.”

It gets legalistically complicated, but the paper’s main point is that the 1996 bipartisan immigration reform law, WHICH SENATOR BIDEN VOTED FOR, provides for the detention & return of migrants who are “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Safety values were included if the gov’t “lacks detention capacity” and allows for the parole of migrants “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons,” i.e., for those needing “medical care.” But, nowhere in the law is their even a hint of releasing foreigners en masse into the U.S. ala the Biden “catch and release” policy. If the government lacks detention capacity (a situation itself is creating), isn’t it “plausible” (as Texas argues) to continue “Remain in Mexico”? In any event, the WSJ concludes, the Biden Administration can’t just “ignore Congress & use its discretion not to enforce the law”. Recall something called “Checks and Balances” in Con Law 101?

Davd Soul