Border crossers, hoping to be released into the United States, are celebrating President Joe Biden ending the widely successful “Remain in Mexico” program that helped reduce asylum fraud.
First started by former President Donald Trump in 2019, the Remain in Mexico program sought to eliminate asylum fraud and end the practice known as “Catch and Release” whereby border crossers and illegal aliens are briefly apprehended before being released into the U.S. interior while they await their future asylum hearings.
The program required border crossers and illegal aliens to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearings in the U.S. after their arrival at the southern border — ensuring they were not simply released into American communities with the hope that they would show up to their hearings.
After the Supreme Court and a lower court ruled that Biden could end Remain in Mexico, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said he would finally end the program.
Remain in Mexico’s end means thousands of border crossers enrolled in the program will now be released into American communities on a promise to show up for future hearings.
One border crosser told the San Diego Union-Tribune that he was “free” after learning he would be released into the U.S. interior rather than being returned to Mexico.
“In this moment, I am free,” he told the Union-Tribune in Spanish a few minutes after he was officially released from custody. “Before, I was not free.” [Emphasis added]
The man was among the first migrants released from [Remain in Mexico] this past week with the Biden administration’s announcement that the program was ending, following a lengthy legal battle in federal court. However, days later, most of those enrolled in the program are still waiting to be let into the United States. [Emphasis added]
“Knowing that I will be able to be here is huge,” he said. “It’s magnificent.” [Emphasis added]
In San Diego, California, alone, thousands of border crossers are expected to be released into the U.S. interior as a result of Biden ending Remain in Mexico. The program, as federal data shows, was hugely successful.
The latest data shows that of the more than 45,000 Remain in Mexico cases adjudicated since 2019, fewer than 740 migrants have been found to have legitimate asylum claims to remain in the U.S. This indicates that only 1.6 percent of Remain in Mexico migrants end up having valid asylum claims to stay in the U.S.
Meanwhile, more than 71 percent of migrants have been ordered to be deported after failing to show they have legitimate asylum claims. More than 23 percent of migrants terminated their asylum proceedings.
Officials on Biden’s National Security Council have privately warned that the program’s end will drive up illegal immigration at the southern border even more than current levels.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter here.
Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (Pictured below) issued an Executive Order on Friday directing the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs to fill the gaps in the Yuma border wall starting immediately.
“Arizona has had enough,” Ducey said in a press release. “We can’t wait any longer. The Biden administration’s lack of urgency on border security is a dereliction of duty. For the last two years, Arizona has made every attempt to work with Washington to address the crisis on our border. Time and time again we’ve stepped in to clean up their mess. Arizonans can’t wait any longer for the federal government to deliver on their delayed promises.”
The Executive Order came days after the Biden administration abandoned the Remain in Mexico policy.
The governor’s office called the Biden administration’s decision “misguided.” It added that the White House has failed to secure the border, allowing transnational criminal organizations to bring more drugs over the southern border.
“Our border communities are being used as the entryway to the United States, overwhelming law enforcement, hospitals, nonprofits and residents,” Ducey said in the release. “It’s our responsibility to protect our citizens and law enforcement from this unprecedented crisis. With the resources and manpower in the right places, our Border Patrol and law enforcement will be better equipped to do their jobs well and prevent cartels from exploiting our communities. That’s exactly what our barrier mission will do.”
Arizona will use 60 double-stacked shipping containers reinforced with concertina wire at the top to secure this vulnerable part of the border.
The double-stacked containers with wire will reach 22 feet high. The governor’s office says the state will use 800-pound, 9-by-40-feet containers. For reference, the Trump administration’s border walls were 30 feet tall.
Construction to fill this 1,000-foot gap began Friday morning. Emergency management contractor Ashbritt is building the barrier. A 25-man team will likely complete the project over the weekend.
The project will cost the state $6 million.
“National security starts with border security. Biden’s border crisis deteriorates daily while the White House is silent,” Jonathan Lines, Yuma County Supervisor, said in the press release. “Border communities like Yuma bear the burden of a broken border while narcotics poison our youth, human smuggling rises and mass amounts of migrants wear on our nonprofits. Beyond that, the seizure of counterfeit products at our ports of entry affects American businesses. Governor Ducey has been a consummate partner, coordinating and leading state and local resources to do what the federal government won’t: secure the border.”
The Yuma Sector of the U.S.-Mexico border has been busy over the past year. It saw 235,230 migrant encounters from October 2021 to June 2022, according to a press release from the governor’s office.
“The Yuma community does not have the infrastructure to handle thousands of people crossing the border in need of food, shelter and medical services,” Yuma Mayor Doug Nicholls said in the press release. “The surge of migrants the federal government has allowed to trek over the border has the grave potential to greatly impact and strain our community. Washington must send a clear message that this is not the way to immigrate to our country. Too many migrants make the treacherous journey that puts their lives in danger and exposes them to exploitation by cartels. Yuma has experienced the worst of the border crisis. We’re grateful to Governor Ducey for ingraining himself in this issue and finding solutions.”
Drugs have also made their way across the border. So far this fiscal year, more than 2,400 pounds of fentanyl have been seized in Arizona’s sectors. Fentanyl overdoses are now the leading cause of death for people 19 and younger in Pima County, according to the governor’s office.
“The White House lacks a sense of urgency and detail while the border crisis gets worse every day. In Arizona, we put our money where our mouth is,” Tim Roemer, Arizona Department of Homeland Security Director and the state’s Chief Information Security Officer, said in the press release.
“The brave men and women of law enforcement need this support so they can conduct their important work catching the people who don’t want to get caught and stopping lethal drugs from coming over the border. Governor Ducey once again showed he’ll take action to secure the border and give law enforcement every resource in the state’s power.”
Header featured image (edited) credit: Border agent/migrants/Getty Image
Pictorial content added by (TLB) editors; Gov. Ducey/Ross D. Franklin/AP
Emphasis added by (TLB) editors
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends First,” Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) reacted to the Supreme Court’s rulings on EPA authority and the Biden administration’s quest to Remain in Mexico policy by stating that Congress has given far too much power to the executive branch and unelected bureaucrats and “We need to enumerate exactly what we want on immigration” by making Remain in Mexico the law.
Gimenez stated, [relevant remarks begin around 2:40] “Congress has not done a good job in establishing exactly what it wants and it gives way too much power and delegates way too much to the bureaucrats, the unelected bureaucrats. We need to take control back in Congress, and I think that that’s what this ruling kind of indicates, that…this is a congressional issue, the Congress did not give you that power and you just can’t assume that Congress gave you that power.”
He continued, “And look, a great example will be what we have to do with the decision with Remain in Mexico, right? The Supreme Court said, yeah, it’s an executive decision, they can overturn an executive decision. We give way too much power to the executive branch. We need to enumerate exactly what we want on immigration.”
Gimenez added that he’ll introduce legislation to enshrine Remain in Mexico.
On Thursday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) reacted to the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the Biden administration to remove the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), which are also known as the Remain in Mexico policy by stating that people who are claiming asylum should stay in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated as long as they can have an attorney present their case and they can stay in Mexico safely, and not doing so means giving most people false hope by allowing them to enter the United States when only “10-12% are going to be given asylum.”
Cuellar said, “My position has been that, in this case, if you have them remain in Mexico and they have access to an attorney they want to come and present their case and they’re in a safe situation, then we ought to do that. Because otherwise, you have so many people that come in — come into the United States. And a lot of them are given false hope because if you have a hundred people, only 10-12% are going to be given asylum. … So, why are we letting 100% when we should be allowing only 10% to 12% of those people to come into the United States?”
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that President Joe Biden’s administration can end the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), commonly known as the “Remain in Mexico” program, but is sending a key part of the case back to a lower court.
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that the Biden administration did not violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when it sought to end the Remain in Mexico program, which was first imposed by former President Trump’s administration.
The Remain in Mexico program allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to quickly return border crossers to Mexico while they await their asylum and immigration hearings in the United States — effectively eliminating the practice commonly known as “Catch and Release.”
A district court and a court of appeals had both previously held that the Biden administration violated the INA when it sought to end Remain in Mexico. The district court also held that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh also wrote a concurring opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a dissenting opinion that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined except for one sentence.
The Court’s opinion reads in part:
As we recently held in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U. S. ___ (2022), section 1252(f )(1) “generally prohibits lower courts from entering injunctions that order federal officials to take or to refrain from taking actions to enforce, implement, or otherwise carry out the specified statutory provisions.” [Emphasis added]
The District Court’s injunction in this case violated that provision. [Emphasis added]
We now turn to the merits. Section 1225(b)(2)(C) provides: “In the case of an alien . . . who is arriving on land . . . from a foreign territory contiguous to the United States, the [Secretary] may return the alien to that territory pending a proceeding under section 1229a.” Section 1225(b)(2)(C) plainly confers a discretionary authority to return aliens to Mexico during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. This Court has “repeatedly observed” that “the word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” [Emphasis added]
The use of the word “may” in section 1225(b)(2)(C) thus makes clear that contiguous-territory return is a tool that the Secretary “has the authority, but not the duty,” to use. [Emphasis added]
For the reasons explained, the Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the District Court should consider in the first instance whether the October 29 Memoranda comply with section 706 of the APA. [Emphasis added]
The ruling means that SCOTUS holds that the district court did not have jurisdiction to previously stop the Biden administration from ending Remain in Mexico but also left open the possibility that the court does have the power to vacate the administration’s ending of the program.
In that regard, the case will be sent back to the district court for another hearing.
In his dissent, Justice Alito wrote:
In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol reported more than 1.7 million encounters with aliens along the Mexican border. When it appears that one of these aliens is not admissible, may the Government simply release the alien in this country and hope that the alien will show up for the hearing at which his or her entitlement to remain will be decided? [Emphasis added]
Congress has provided a clear answer to that question, and the answer is no. By law, if an alien is “not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,” the alien “shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding.” [Emphasis added]
And if an alien asserts a credible fear of persecution, he or she “shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum,” §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added). Those requirements, as we have held, are mandatory. [Emphasis added]
Congress offered the Executive two—and only two—alternatives to detention. First, if an alien is “arriving on land” from “a foreign territory contiguous to the United States,” the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “may return the alien to that territory pending a [removal] proceeding.” Second, DHS may release individual aliens on “parole,” but “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit.” [Emphasis added]
Due to the huge numbers of aliens who attempt to enter illegally from Mexico, DHS does not have the capacity to detain all inadmissible aliens encountered at the border, and no one suggests that DHS must do the impossible. But rather than avail itself of Congress’s clear statutory alternative to return inadmissible aliens to Mexico while they await proceedings in this country, DHS has concluded that it may forgo that option altogether and instead simply release into this country untold numbers of aliens who are very likely to be removed if they show up for their removal hearings. This practice violates the clear terms of the law, but the Court looks the other way. [Emphasis added]
I agree with the majority that the injunction entered by the District Court in this case exceeded its “jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of ” the relevant statutes. [Emphasis added]
The ruling ensures that the case is not over and will go back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lower courts could help restore Remain in Mexico and could make the case a critical issue in 2024, as it could end up before SCOTUS again.
Alito wrote in his dissent:
The District Court should assess, among other things, whether it is “arbitrary and capricious” for DHS to refuse to use its contiguous-territory return authority to avoid violations of the statute’s clear detention mandate; whether the deterrent effect that DHS found MPP produced in reducing dangerous attempted illegal border crossings, as well as MPP’s reduction of unmeritorious asylum claims, is adequately accounted for in the agency’s new decision; and whether DHS’s rescission of MPP is causing it to make parole decisions on an unlawful categorical basis rather than case-by-case, as the statute prescribes. [Emphasis added]
If the Fifth Circuit appeals court affirms such an order from the district court, then Remain in Mexico would remain in force at least until SCOTUS decides to hear an appeal for that decision, making it possible that any such final decision from SCOTUS would not come down until the first half of 2024, in the middle of the next presidential campaign.
If the district court finds the Biden administration’s ending Remain in Mexico to be arbitrary and capricious on the issues raised by Alito, the program will be reinstated. If that occurs before July 31, the program might even never be terminated, remaining in force while the Justice Department appeals to the Fifth Circuit appeals court.
Depending on the timing of the appellate court’s decision, all of this might put the case back on track to be heard by SCOTUS in the fall of 2023, with a decision coming down in the first six months of 2024. The November 2024 presidential election will then take place, and depending on the incoming administration in January 2025, Remain in Mexico could be reimplemented for the entirety of this time except for roughly six months between the 2024 SCOTUS decision and a new president taking the helm.
The case is Biden v. Texas, No. 21–954 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
Editor’s note: This is the first of a two-part series. Part two will be published next week.
REYNOSA, Mexico — We met Osniel at Senda de Vida, a massive migrant shelter situated on the south bank of the Rio Grande across from McAllen, Texas. The slender 23-year-old Cuban didn’t give us his last name, but did tell us he’d paid a coyote, or smuggler, $11,000 to leave his home country, transit through Central America and Mexico, and cross the border into the United States — twice.
Both times he crossed, though, he’d been arrested by Border Patrol and quickly sent back to Mexico under Title 42, the pandemic health order that allows U.S. authorities to expel illegal immigrants quickly, with minimal processing. When Osniel left Cuba in early April, Title 42 didn’t apply to Cubans. But that changed while he was en route.
On April 27, the Biden administration cut a deal with Mexico to begin expelling up to 100 Cubans and 20 Nicaraguans a day from three border facilities. For Osniel, it was just bad timing — he crossed the river on April 29.
“Title 42 was active under Donald Trump, and all this time, all this time Cubans were crossing over the river and entering with a humanitarian visa,” Osniel told me and a pair of colleagues, Emily Jashinsky and David Agren, who accompanied me recently to migrant shelters in Reynosa and Matamoros. “Now, Cubans keep trying to cross the river and they keep getting sent back.”
He said he wasn’t sure what he was going to do now. Having tried to cross the border twice, he couldn’t try again without paying the local cartel, and he had no more money. (Nearly everyone who crosses the Rio Grande in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, where Reynosa is situated, has to pay a tax to the cartels, which have been profiting handsomely from the arrangement.)
Early the next morning, around 2 a.m., Osniel called David in a panic. He had swam across the river, he said, but hadn’t paid, and now feared he was being pursued by cartel gunmen. He said he was hiding on the north bank of the Rio Grande.
A GPS pin on WhatsApp showed he was just outside the town of Hidalgo, Texas, not far from the international bridge. He wanted David to call the police or Border Patrol to come pick him up before the cartel found him. David got ahold of the local police but they said it was Border Patrol’s responsibility, and no one picked up the phone at the McAllen Border Patrol station that night.
Osniel’s last communication, via WhatsApp, was at 5:52 a.m. The GPS pin showed he was on the U.S. side of the border, near the riverbank. We haven’t heard from him since.
In Northern Mexico, Illegal Immigration Has Become A Vast Black Market
Over the past year, illegal immigration along the southwest border has reached historic highs, with nearly 2.5 million arrests since last April. U.S. border authorities apprehended on average more than 6,725 illegal immigrants every day in April, the highest number ever recorded. (As of this writing, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has yet to release numbers for May, which will almost certainly be higher than April’s.)
(UPDATE: CBP released May numbers on Wednesday, June 15, after press time. There were a record 239,416 encounters with illegal immigrants along the southwest border last month, the highest monthly total ever, surpassing April’s record. So far in the 2022 fiscal year, about 1.5 million illegal immigrants have been arrested by Border Patrol. With four months remaining in FY2022, border arrests are almost certain to surpass 2 million.)
Why are so many coming now? We asked that question to every migrant we spoke to in Mexico and Texas, and nearly every one of them at some point said that they had heard it was a good time to come, that they would be able to get in. They’re not wrong.
What they find upon arriving in northern Mexico, however, is not what many of them expected. For some, like Osniel, Title 42 still represents a real obstacle (although since Joe Biden took office, fewer and fewer illegal immigrants are being expelled under its authority). All of them, though, are drawn into a vast criminal enterprise run by cartels that have in recent years transformed illegal immigration into an industrialized black market. Elias Rodriguez, director of a migrant shelter run by the Catholic Diocese of Matamoros, told us bluntly that “everyone who arrives here has paid.”
Indeed, migrants transiting Mexico must not only make sure they have paid whichever cartel controls the area of the border they intend to cross, they often have to pay off Mexican officials en route to the border. More than one person told us how the bus they were on was stopped in Monterrey, or outside Reynosa, and boarded by federal or state officials who asked for everyone’s papers. Those without papers had to pay.
Setting aside the impossibility of confirming these accounts, the proof of such official corruption on a mass scale is the mere fact that hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive at northern Mexican border cities each month. They are here, and they could have gotten here only by paying their way.
Signs of this illegal immigration black market lurk behind nearly every individual migrant’s story. We don’t know, for example, why Osniel changed his mind about crossing the river. At the shelter, he told us he was going to wait there because it was too dangerous to leave. He said men had tried to assault him when he ventured out into Reynosa at one point, and that it wasn’t safe anywhere outside the shelter’s walls.
Maybe he realized there was no other way into the United States. Maybe he was unwilling to wait any longer at the shelter. He’d told us that he follows the news about U.S. border policy closely, so maybe he saw that a U.S. judge recently ordered the Biden administration to keep Title 42 in place instead of ending it on May 23 as planned.
Whatever changed Osniel’s mind, his plight is shared by tens of thousands of other migrants in Reynosa, Matamoros, and Mexican cities all along the border. They are caught between a black market smuggling industry run by ruthless cartels and a mercurial U.S. immigration bureaucracy that seems to adopt new policies and rules every week.
For a certain segment of the migrant population in Mexico, that means they’re stuck. For those who can’t afford to pay the cartels, crossing the river without permission is dangerous. It’s unlikely that Osniel was actually pursued across the river by armed men, but he was lucky to slip by them in Reynosa and make it over to the north bank. In Matamoros, we were told of several migrant groups that tried to cross without paying, and cartel members actually went out into the river and forcibly returned them to the Mexican side.
Others simply refuse to cross illegally, even with the aid of cartel-affiliated smugglers. These are mostly Haitian migrants, and they make up the vast majority of those staying at the shelters in Reynosa and Matamoros. Many of them say they will not cross illegally because they fear being arrested and deported to Haiti, a country most of them left many years ago.
The vast majority of Haitian migrants now in Mexico had until recently been living legally in Chile, Brazil, and other countries in South America. Indeed, of the dozens of Haitian migrants we interviewed, not one had recently lived in Haiti, and none wanted to return there.
For these people, being deported back to Haiti — as thousands were last fall after CBP cleared the encampment near Del Rio, Texas — would be the worst possible outcome. So they wait in Mexican border towns for something to change.
One Haitian man we spoke to, Gerard Estinfils, was among a group of at least a hundred others waiting outside a migrant resource center near the international bridge in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas, on a recent weekday morning, hoping to meet with a lawyer about applying for asylum in the United States.
Estinfils told us he has been in Mexico for ten months with his wife and three children, and they have no money left now. But even if they did, he said he would not pay a smuggler or a cartel to help him cross illegally. He says he and his wife have medical problems, and like some of the other Haitian migrants waiting outside the resource center that day, he hopes to get a medical exemption to enter the United States.
He might well end up getting such an exemption. We spoke to people who were recently discharged from CBP custody in Texas who had been admitted that way. But there is only so long people like Estinfils, who had been living for years in Chile before traveling north, can safely wait in these Mexican border towns. (The U.S. State Department issued a “do not travel” advisory for the entire state of Tamaulipas last June that is still in effect. It forbids U.S. government employees from traveling between cities in Tamaulipas using interior Mexican highways, citing “gun battles, murder, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, forced disappearances, extortion, and sexual assault” activity along the northern Mexican border.)
All of which to say: it’s not safe for Estanfils and his family to be living in these streets, but that’s where they are for the simple reason that there are not enough shelters in these cities, and more people are arriving every day.
At Overcrowded Migrant Shelters, Confusion And Frustration Reign
The day after we met in Matamoros, Estinfils messaged me on WhatsApp. He had seen me and my colleagues at the Sende de Vida shelter in Reynosa, where he had brought his family, hitching a ride from Matamoros from “a servant of God.” He said they left Matamoros because they had no food and nowhere to stay, and were hoping to get into the shelter.
What they found at Sende de Vida was chaos, confusion, and false hope. When we arrived that same day we saw hundreds of people lined up outside the shelter, waiting to get inside. A mood of confusion and frustration prevailed.
Every person we spoke to had been waiting for days in triple-digit heat. They were under the strong impression that there was a list inside the shelter, and that if you got on that list, you would eventually be bused to the international bridge downtown and be admitted to the United States. For that reason, most of them did not want to leave the immediate vicinity of the shelter, despite a lack of food and water and housing of any kind, for fear of losing their chance to get inside and get on the list.
But it wasn’t true. There’s no such list inside the shelter. After we convinced the men guarding the heavy steel door to let us in so we could meet with Pastor Hector Silva, who runs the place, we learned that there is only a waiting list to get into the shelter, not to get into the United States.
Silva told us that the busloads of migrants who leave his shelter every day for the United States (on average, about 120 a day) are selected by CBP with the aid of immigration lawyers and nonprofits. He says CBP officials text him daily, sometimes multiple times a day, the names of migrants who qualify for admittance under America’s byzantine immigration laws. Silva finds these people in his shelter, tests them for Covid, and lines them up in the courtyard with their possessions before loading them onto a yellow school bus and, at least on the day we were there, drives them to the international bridge himself.
The shelter is a ramshackle compound that’s become in effect a walled village, housing about 1,500 people. Children are everywhere, running and playing. The adults loiter in tents and under shaded awnings. Hundreds of tents are packed wall-to-wall in two outdoor courtyards. In Silva’s office, a small staff works ceaselessly to identify people who can be bussed out of the shelter and to the bridge, so more people outside can be admitted.
Haitians make up a majority of residents at the shelter, but many other nationalities are present too. In Silva’s office, we met a couple from Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad), Russia. They said they were journalists and fled the country after they spoke out about the war in Ukraine and were threatened by the police. They spoke no English or Spanish (we communicated through Google translate) and appeared to have no plan to get into the United States. Silva said he has had many Russians and Ukrainians come through the shelter since the spring.
The Russians, though, had this in common with nearly everyone at the shelter: none of them knew how they were going to get into the United States. I spoke to a man from Honduras, Hector, who left his home six weeks ago. His wife is already in the United States, he said, in Texas.
Like many others here, he spent what he had to pay smuggler to get him this far, and now he has no money for a lawyer. He told me he plans to stay at the shelter for two more weeks. If nothing happens, he’s going to swim across the river.
“Everything depends on my luck,” Hector says. “Am I lucky? Okay. But I don’t know.” I ask him if he’s going to pay anyone if he decides to swim across the river.
“No,” he says, shrugging. “I don’t have any money.”
John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is scheduled to hear a case on Tuesday that will decide whether President Joe Biden illegally terminated the Migration Protection Protocols, known as former President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” program.
In 2019, Trump instated the Remain in Mexico program that helped effectively eliminate the policy of Catch and Release at the U.S.-Mexico border. Rather than apprehending and releasing border crossers into the U.S. interior, the program required officials to return border crossers to Mexico while awaiting their asylum and immigration hearings in U.S. courts.
On June 1, 2021, Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued a memorandum terminating Remain in Mexico. A district court then ruled that DHS violated federal immigration law when it terminated Remain in Mexico and that Mayorkas had not adequately detailed his reasoning for terminating the program.
The district court ordered DHS to reinstate the Remain in Mexico program, though Breitbart News sources have said for months that the agency has slow-walked its reimplementation and is hardly making an effort to utilize it.
When Mayorkas, again, tried to terminate Remain in Mexico in October 2021, the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction and ordered that the program remain implemented.
Now, SCOTUS will hear the case on whether federal immigration law requires the administration to continue implementing Remain in Mexico and whether the court of appeals was correct in determining that the program must remain implemented.
The Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), the American First Legal Foundation, and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) are among the organizations backing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s lawsuit against the Biden administration in the case.
“Congress has established a detailed practice for how DHS processes aliens arriving from Mexico. Only Congress can change that practice,” lawyers representing AVIAC wrote in their amicus brief. “DHS cannot refuse to exercise its discretionary option to have aliens remain in Mexico and it cannot ignore a mandate of Congress to craft a third option that fits its desired immigration policy. That is lawmaking by [the] agency in its rankest form.”
The case is Biden v. Texas, 21-954 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow him on Twitter here.
President Joe Biden and his top deputies discarded President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” border control policy because it successfully blocks migrants, the New York Times reported Saturday.
Instead, Biden and his deputies prefer a “humane” system that welcomes migrants, regardless of the nation’s popular immigration laws that protect ordinary Americans’ wages, housing, and careers, according to the Timesarticle.
Trump’s 2019 Remain in Mexico program “was one program that had been effective at keeping some migrants out of border detention facilities,” the article admitted, as it explained why Biden’s team discard the program:
During a [White House] meeting last summer  convened to discuss options for dealing with the record numbers of migrants at the border, Ms. [Elizabeth] Sherwood-Randall raised the possibility of restoring the program, with some additional protections for migrants, according to two people familiar with the matter.
That idea horrified immigration advocates inside the administration, who viewed it not only as a breach of Mr. Biden’s campaign pledge, but also as a retreat from the promise of a more humane [for migrants] immigration system.
Mr. Biden, too, appeared uncomfortable with the idea, according to a person who was in the room for the meeting.
Since then, a court has forced Biden’s deputies to restart the program. But Biden’s officials have only used it for about 2,000 people out of the 1 million-plus migrants who have been caught at the border since Biden’s inauguration.
The program — also called the Migrant Protection Protocols — sends migrants back into camps in Mexico for a few months until a judge is ready to hear their pleas for asylum. If the migrants lose their pleas for asylum, they are flown home. If they win, they are allowed into the United States.
The Remain in Mexico policy works because it blocks economic migrants from getting the U.S. jobs they need to repay their smuggling debts.
“If the migrants cannot get jobs, they cannot pay their smuggling debts,” Walter Sinche, the executive director of the Ecuadorian International Alliance, told Breitbart News in March. “All over, coyotes are lending money [to migrants] but they have to sign a document saying ‘If you’re not paying [the debt], I’ll take your land or house or any other property,’” he said.
If the debt is not paid, “most of the time, they ended up taking the properties,” he said.
In contrast, Biden and his deputies prefer to accelerate the economic migration by offering “catch and release” to the migrants. The policy allows the migrants to cross the border and take a job the next day.
Joe Biden announced on Friday he will reverse Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy for migrants seeking refugee status and will admit at least 25,000 people into the United States. https://t.co/6qrUY1wX6r
For Biden and his deputies, their progressive desire to treat foreign migrants “humanely” trumps their legal and national obligation to protect their fellow Americans’ wages, careers, and housing from a wave of migrant laborers and renters.
The result has been a massive inflow of roughly one million cheap workers, whose desperation for work is exploited by U.S. employers.
The employers now can hire the migrant workers while discarding American workers, cutting their wages, and reducing workplace accommodations for parents, recovering addicts, untrained youths, and people who might return to work after years of relying on government handouts.
The New York Times reported that the response to the expected migration spike is to offer the migrants quick processing and efficient transport to the jobs they want:
Homeland Security officials recently released a plan for responding to that spike. An official from the Federal Emergency Management Agency is leading the operation, which aims to swiftly and humanely get migrants through border processing and into immigration detention or to their final destination.
Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has used a wide variety of excuses and explanations — for example, “Nation of Immigrants” — to justify its policy of extracting tens of millions of migrants and visa workers from poor countries to serve as workers, consumers, and renters for various U.S. investors and CEOs.
The self-serving economic strategy of extraction migration has no stopping point. It is brutal to ordinary Americans because it cuts their career opportunities, shrinks their salaries and wages, raises their housing costs, and has shoved at least ten million American men out of the labor force.
Extraction migration also distorts the economy, and curbs Americans’ productivity, partly because it allows employers to use stoop labor instead of machines.
Migration also reduces voters’ political clout, undermines employees’ workplace rights, and widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ coastal states and the Republicans’ Heartland states.
REVEALED: Thousands of migrants, enrolled in the “Remain in Mexico” program, released into the U.S. interior are resettled in Florida and Texas. https://t.co/S5vtgdXfiH
The economic strategy also kills many migrants, exploits poor people, splits foreign families, and extracts wealth from the poor home countries.
The extraction migration policy is backed by progressives who wish to transform the United States from a society governed by European-origin civic culture into a progressive-led empire of competing identity groups. “We’re trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), told the New York Times on March 21. “It will be an extraordinary achievement … we will ultimately triumph,” he insisted.
Not surprisingly, the wealth-shifting extraction migration policy is very unpopular, according to a widevariety of polls.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.