The Supreme Court voted in favor of Trump’s “stay in Mexico” policy.

  • The Biden administration has been sued for revoking Trump’s immigration policy.
  • The “stay in Mexico” policy forced refugees to stay in Mexico as their cases were processed.
  • The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to reinstate the policy.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump-era immigration policy – which requires immigrants to stay in Mexico because their asylum cases are being processed – should be reinstated.

President Joe Biden’s administration has withdrawn its policy. In April, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmidt sued the Biden administration over the decisions. Pakistan claimed that the repeal of the policy increased crime and resources.

“President Biden can immediately address the issue of cross-border crime by restoring the Immigrant Protection Protocol,” Pakistan said in a statement. “Dangerous criminals are taking advantage of law enforcement failures and resulting in human trafficking, trafficking, a plethora of violent crimes, and a massive, unprecedented burden on state and federal programs for which taxpayers are billed. We have to act. “

Earlier this month, Texas Federal Judge Matthew J. Cesmark ordered Biden to reinstate the policy. He said federal law does not allow the government to detain asylum seekers if they do not have the resources.

The policy of living in Mexico was implemented by the Department of Homeland Security under Trump in early 2019 and required asylum seekers to register their cases on their way from Mexico to the United States and stay in Mexico.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court’s conservative judges said the move to cancel the program was “arbitrary and ridiculous.”

The order said Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan would allow the program to be canceled.

In December 2020, Human Rights First, a non-profit organization, found that since February 2019, more than 1,300 people in Mexico have been awaiting trial for rape, kidnapping, or other means.

“It is a humanitarian pity and a legal betrayal to continue to turn away people who want to protect American refugees on the southern border,” said Kenji Kezuka, an HRF researcher.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.