• Skip to main content

Search

Just another WordPress site

I want joe biden need joe biden

Biden faces 3 awkward anniversaries of things he shouldn’t have said

July 1, 2022 by www.newsweek.com Leave a Comment

Last July, President Joe Biden made a series of public remarks that have come back to haunt him as things have turned out to be the opposite of what he predicted. Those statements marked the beginning of a tumbling approval rating, which, a year later, has yet to bounce back.

Biden’s time in the White House started off promising after the Democrat received more than 81 million votes—the most ever cast for a presidential candidate—and he entered office with a relatively high approval rating. Biden’s approval rating has since sunk below that of former President Donald Trump ‘s at the same point in his term, and members of his own party are losing confidence in his ability to lead on key issues.

Biden’s rating remained steady at about the 52 percent mark until mid-June 2021. What followed were three crises facing America and what seemed to be less-than-accurate predictions from the Biden administration on the Omicron COVID surge, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and soaring inflation.

“Public faith in presidents is like a block of ice, it melts slowly,” Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, told Newsweek . “No one event will rupture public faith in the White House to work but multiple failures will generate a crisis of confidence among the public.”

“For the Biden White House, it’s death by a thousand paper cuts,” he said. “Small mistakes or missteps add up to perceptions about White House incompetence to assess and handle big domestic and international issues.”

The Omicron Surge

In his first year in the Oval Office, Biden celebrated the Fourth of July with America’s “independence from COVID-19.”

From the South Lawn of the White House, Biden told the nation, “Two hundred and forty-five years ago, we declared our independence from a distant king. Today, we’re closer than ever to declaring our independence from a deadly virus ,” noting that the virus “has not been vanquished.”

“We all know powerful variants have emerged, like the Delta variant, but the best defense against these variants is to get vaccinated,” the president said in his speech.

Barbara Perry, the University of Virginia’s director of presidential studies, pointed out to Newsweek that the state of the pandemic had improved at the time of Biden’s remark, but it just turned out that “it was the calm before the storm.”

Five months later, on December 1, public health authorities announced the country’s first confirmed Omicron case. Although less severe than Delta, the Omicron variant is four times more contagious than Delta. The transmissibility of Omicron—alongside the variant’s emergence over the holidays, when many were gathered indoors—quickly made it the most dominant strain of the virus in the U.S.

With COVID rapidly spreading ahead of the winter holidays, Americans faced significant wait times to be tested and vaccinated. Cases surged, prompting some areas to reinstate mask mandates, and in January, deaths from COVID-19 under Biden surpassed those experienced while Trump was in office.

On December 23, with a 43 percent approval rating, Biden acknowledged to ABC News that people being unable to access tests was not “good enough” and that he wished he considered ordering hundreds of millions of at-home tests months prior. However, Biden denied his testing strategy was a “failure.”

While Biden’s July statements aimed to provide a positive outlook at the time, Rottinghaus said, “in retrospect they look like policy incompetence.”

Perry acknowledged that the unprecedented nature of COVID has been difficult for anyone to predict but said Biden’s remarks in July were likely too optimistic. She said that even though Biden has continuously called on the nation to get their shots, Trump’s downplaying of the virus had done irreversible damage to the public’s perception of the pandemic.

“Do we blame presidents, then, when people don’t follow the president? That’s an interesting question. Because is that poor leadership?” Perry said.

Withdrawal From Afghanistan

As the pullout of American forces from Afghanistan neared, there were growing concerns from those who witnessed the Vietnam War that there were parallels to be drawn between the two withdrawals . Many veterans worried that the world would see another rushed exit that echoed what the State Department described ​​as the most “ambitious helicopter evacuation in history.”

Asked about those fears on July 8, Biden told the press, “The Taliban is not the south—the North Vietnamese army.”

“There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of an embassy in the—of the United States from Afghanistan,” he said. “It is not at all comparable.”

Just a little over a month later, the U.S. scrambled to complete a full withdrawal of its embassy in Kabul within 72 hours. Images from Afghanistan showing military helicopters evacuating diplomats from the U.S. compound flooded social media and fierce criticism fell on Biden’s shoulders.

As troops rushed to meet Biden’s August 31 deadline for leaving Afghanistan, the president’s approval rating fell massively. On August 30, the percentage of Americans who disapproved of Biden overtook the number of Americans who approved. By September, Biden was averaging a 48 percent disapproval rating.

Even though Biden had been following public opinion indicating that it was time to leave Afghanistan, according to polls, people turned on Biden after seeing the pictures of the crowds on the tarmac of the Kabul international airport and hearing of the 13 U.S. service members who were killed in a terror attack.

“The American public is fickle,” Perry said.

She noted that it was the Trump administration that signed the deal with the Taliban—a reason Biden himself cited for not changing the timeline for leaving Afghanistan.

Despite potentially being “boxed in” by Trump’s agreement, given what Biden’s team knew from the scenes of Saigon, Perry said, to this day, she still does not understand why the Biden administration did not approach the withdrawal with more care.

“As in Vietnam, there is no good way to end a war that you’re losing. There is no clean extrication from a war that you are losing,” she said. “We were losing in Vietnam and we were losing in Afghanistan.”

In the fallout of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Biden told ABC News that he didn’t see a way of leaving without ” chaos ensuing .”

Inflation

Last summer, Biden marked the first six months of his administration by delivering remarks on the economy. At the time, more than 3 million new jobs had been added and Biden celebrated “the fastest growth, I’m told, at this point in any administration’s history.”

“We also know that as our economy has come roaring back, we’ve seen some price increases,” Biden said on July 19, adding that “some folks have raised worries that this could be a sign of persistent inflation.” Citing his financial experts, Biden insisted that rising prices “were expected and expected to be temporary.”

The increases in costs were what economists call “transitory effects,” Biden said.

Almost a year later, inflation has become the biggest threat to the Democrats , who are trying to hold onto control of Congress in the 2022 midterms.

Biden has repeatedly referred to soaring consumer costs as “Putin’s price hike,” referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the shift of blame has not sat well with Americans who just want to see lower prices at the gas pump and the grocery store.

“While Biden’s approval rating on his handling of the pandemic is now positive, his approval remains low, largely because of inflation,” Democratic pollster Carly Cooperman told Newsweek .

Inflation, which reached a 40-year high this month, has been a particularly difficult issue for Biden to address because of the few tools he has to actually drive down prices and because lowering inflation would likely come at the cost of his administration’s low unemployment rate.

Since monetary policy is supposed to be under the power of the Federal Reserve, Perry said that of all the economic issues for a president to address directly, inflation is the hardest.

The president “has the least amount of control over that on one of the economic issues that has the most impact on the most people,” she explained. “So at all times, he’s going to try to lessen the blow and not go out to the people and say, ‘Well, it’s as high as it’s been in 40 years, and it’s probably gonna go higher.'”

Giving Americans the cold, hard truth was something Jimmy Carter did in his 1979 Crisis of Confidence speech. But the next year, he lost in a landslide election to Ronald Reagan.

With Republicans poised to flip the House and Senate in November, Biden will need to reverse the current trajectory of the U.S. economy to save the Democrats.

“As inflation is top-of-mind for voters, Biden needs to take on this issue directly, both by connecting with voters about the increasingly high price of food and gas as well as by focusing on passing inflation-fighting measures,” Cooperman said. “Biden is now making that shift. He has recently called tackling inflation his ‘top priority.'”

Filed Under: Politics Politics, Joe Biden, biden administration, White House, COVID-19, pandemics, Coronavirus, Omicron, Anniversary, Afghanistan..., what is the best thing to clean your face with, anniversary things to do

Supreme Court allows Biden to end Trump-era “Remain in Mexico” policy

July 1, 2022 by www.chron.com Leave a Comment

This is a carousel. Use Next and Previous buttons to navigate

17

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday the Biden administration can scrap a Trump-era immigration policy to make asylum-seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration courts, a victory for a White House that still must address the growing number of people seeking refuge at America’s southern border.

The ruling will have little immediate impact because the policy has been seldom applied under President Joe Biden, who reinstated it under a court order in December. It was his predecessor, Donald Trump, who launched the “Remain in Mexico” policy and fully embraced it.

Two conservative justices joined their three liberal colleagues in siding with the White House.

Under Trump, the program enrolled about 70,000 people after it was launched in 2019. Biden suspended the policy, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols on his first day in office in January 2021. But lower courts ordered it reinstated in response to a lawsuit from Republican-led Texas and Missouri.

Dynamics at the border have changed considerably since “Remain in Mexico” was a centerpiece of Trump’s border policies.

Another Trump-era policy that remains in effect and was not a part of Thursday’s ruling allows the government to quickly expel migrants without a chance to ask for asylum, casting aside U.S. law and an international treaty on grounds of containing the spread of COVID-19. There have been more than 2 million expulsions since the pandemic-era rule, known as Title 42 authority, was introduced in March 2020.

In May, a federal judge in Louisiana prevented the Biden administration from halting Title 42, in a case that may ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

The court’s decision Thursday was released on the same day that the justices dealt the administration a blow in an important environmental case about the nation’s main anti-air pollution law. That ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change.

The heart of the legal fight in the immigration case was about whether U.S. immigration authorities, with far less detention capacity than needed, had to send people to Mexico or whether those authorities had the discretion under federal law to release asylum-seekers into the United States while they awaited their hearings.

After Biden’s suspension of the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended it in June 2021. In October, the department produced additional justifications for the policy’s demise, but that was to no avail in the courts.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an appeals court “erred in holding that the” federal Immigration and Nationality Act “required the Government to continue implementing MPP.” Joining the majority opinion was fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump-appointee, as well as liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Kavanaugh also wrote separately and noted that in general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both releasing asylum-seekers into the United States and sending them back to Mexico “are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes.”

The Department of Homeland Security said it welcomed the ruling and that it will “continue our efforts to terminate the program as soon as legally permissible.” It added in a statement that it continues to enforce Title 42 and “our immigration laws at the border and administer consequences for those who enter unlawfully.”

Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration expert, said the Biden administration does not need to take any further action to end the policy, but that Texas and Missouri can pursue a challenge over whether the administration followed appropriate procedure in ending the program.

In a dissent for himself and fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the practice of releasing “untold numbers of aliens” into the United States “violates the clear terms of the law, but the court looks the other way.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said she agreed with the majority’s analysis of the merits of the case but would have sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that the decision was “unfortunate.” He argued it would make “the border crisis worse. But it’s not the end. I’ll keep pressing forward and focus on securing the border and keeping our communities safe in the dozen other immigration suits I’m litigating in court.” Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said the decision would “only embolden the Biden Administration’s open border policies.”

Since December, the administration has registered only 7,259 migrants in “Remain in Mexico.” U.S. authorities stopped migrants 1.2 million times on the Mexico border from December through May, illustrating the policy’s limited impact under Biden.

About 6 of every 10 people in the program are Nicaraguans. The administration has said it would apply the policy to nationalities that are less likely to be subject to the broader Title 42 policy. Strained diplomatic relations with Nicaragua makes it extremely difficult for the U.S. to expel people back to their homeland under Title 42.

Immigrant advocates acknowledged that a relatively small number of asylum seekers arriving on the southwest border are affected by the MPP program with which the court ruling dealt. Still, advocates and Democrats were among those cheering the decision as were those waiting in Mexico.

Oscar Rene Cruz, a taxi driver from Nicaragua who is in a Salvation Army Shelter in Tijuana, Mexico, said after the ruling: “We are all very happy, waiting to see what is going to happen now with us, we know the program has finished but we haven’t been told what they are going to do with us.”

Cruz added: “I wish this will be over soon. Nobody wants to stay here” in Mexico.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, said in a statement that those “fleeing violence and persecution to seek asylum —as they are entitled to by law —should not be forced to remain in places that have been deemed dangerous and unsafe while they wait for their day in court.”

Jacob Lichtenbaum, staff attorney for the immigrant rights group CASA in Maryland, called the ruling a “major victory for safety, compassion, and the rule of law.”

But Rep. John Katko of New York, the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said the program was a critical tool to help manage arrivals on the southwest border and the current administration lacks a plan to address the issue.

The case is Biden v. Texas, 21-954.

___

Spagat reported from San Diego. Associated Press writers Amy Taxin in Orange County, California, Jorge Lebrija in Tijuana, Mexico, and Alan Fram in Washington contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Joe Biden, Amy Coney Barrett GOVERNMENT_FIGURE PERSON, Alejandro Mayorkas, John Katko, Rene Cruz, Samuel Alito, Ken Paxton, Greg Abbott, John Roberts, Stephen..., New Mexico Supreme Court, trump supreme court, trump supreme court pick

What kind of president do Republicans want? | Opinion

July 1, 2022 by www.newsweek.com Leave a Comment

The Biden presidency is a disappointment to Americans. That goes for people who voted for him—who thought he’d do a better job—and people who, even as they voted against him, did not believe he could make as much of a hash of things as he has.

The list of problems is long and growing longer. More COVID-19 cases than there were under Donald Trump . Inflation like we haven’t seen since the Carter years. Rapidly rising interest rates. Shortages. The debacle in Afghanistan. War in Ukraine. It’s no wonder a growing majority of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

According to a new Associated Press-NORC survey , 85 percent of American adults—including more than 7 in 10 Democrats—say the country is not on the right track. Almost two-thirds—60 percent—blame the president for that, with just 39 percent of those participating in the survey saying they approve of his overall presidential leadership. As if that were not bad enough, 69 percent of those surveyed, including 43 percent of the Democrats who responded, rated his handling of the economy “poor.”

Democrats need to face facts. If the president’s age is not an argument against his seeking a second term, his poll numbers are. Support for him has dropped to his predecessor’s level. Trump, at least, benefited from a highly motivated, energized bloc of diehard supporters upon whom he could always count. Biden was always a compromise choice about whom no one was truly enthusiastic.

As of now, the president’s numbers are more likely to get worse than they are to get better. It is much easier, as a friend of mine likes to observe, for his approval rating to fall deeper into the 30s than to get back above 50 percent. This is good news for the Republicans , because it makes it increasingly likely the GOP will win back control of one or both congressional chambers in November, all but guaranteeing the Biden agenda, such as it is, will grind to a full stop.

That may not put the Republicans in charge of the government, but it would effectively make Biden a “lame duck.” He won’t be able to get anything major through and won’t have anything on which to campaign for a second term. Recognizing that, GOP leaders need to be extremely strategic in deciding who they want to run in 2024.

The likely choice, most polls say, is Donald Trump. He’d be the easy winner—in a race against Biden. But what if the Democrats nominate someone else? What if Trump decides not to run? What then? It’s a puzzle, and one that’s not easily solved.

Biden has set the bar so low that it would not be too hard to find a better president among the list of potential GOP nominees—which extends well beyond the list currently being bandied about. The challenge is to find the best president, the one who will right the ship of state the current administration sent headlong into a typhoon.

The GOP needs a nominee who doesn’t just say he or she will put America’s interests first and is on the right side on critical issues like economic growth, taxes and spending, guns, abortion, and school choice, but who has demonstrated leadership on those issues. Someone who has a dynamic vision of the future most all Americans can embrace with enthusiasm.

These people do exist. The best candidates to be “the best president” are out there now, in the U.S. Senate and running the red states. In the next campaign, their records will be what matters most. What a candidate says he wants to do needs to be measured against what he’s accomplished—or at least tried to accomplish. That goes for candidates’ record building the party as well. Did they help expand the party and its representation in Congress and the state legislatures? How many Senate, House, and gubernatorial candidates did they help? How much money did they help raise for others compared to how much they raised to fuel their own ambitions? Do they adhere to Reagan’s 11th Commandment (“thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican”), or do they resort to sharp elbows and cutting remarks against foes who should be considered friends? In short, what kind of leader do Republicans want for the next four, and perhaps eight, years?

The answer is not obvious, even for those who’ve already decided to back Trump again. He accomplished much. It’s fair to say he delivered on his promise to “Make America Great Again”—at least before the lockdowns started. His commitment to keeping his word on judges is directly responsible for the overturning of the constitutionally suspect 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which was bad law no matter which side of the issue you were on.

Trump was right for his time—but is he right for the future? He’ll get a chance to make his case after November if he chooses to run. Whether he does or doesn’t, the others who want the job will get the same chance. The Republicans who are tasked with choosing the candidate in 2024 need to keep their options open and think seriously about who can best get the country where it needs to go. If they want to win, they need to make the candidates come to them.

Newsweek contributing editor Peter Roff has written extensively about politics and the American experience for U.S. News and World Report, United Press International, and other publications. He can be reached by email at [email protected] . Follow him on Twitter @TheRoffDraft

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Opinion, Republicans, Democrats, Elections, Joe Biden, republican president t shirt, republican u.s. presidents, republican president george w bush, 2 term republican presidents, last 3 republican presidents, 3 famous republican presidents, last 4 republican presidents, 4 most recent republican presidents, top 5 republican presidents, republicans opinion about gun control

Biden Adviser Sperling: It Wasn’t a Mistake for Biden to Block Oil Leases on Federal Land

July 1, 2022 by www.breitbart.com Leave a Comment

On Friday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Story,” Senior Adviser to President Joe Biden Gene Sperling stated that the Biden administration’s plan to allow some more drilling on federal land is “not at all” an admission that previous blocking of drilling leases was a mistake.

Host Martha MacCallum asked, [relevant remarks begin around 3:40] “The oil industry has made it clear that they feel like the administration has basically condemned their industry and doesn’t want them to grow, wants them to shrink over time. … I could put up a whole litany of soundbites that back that up. But I think it’s interesting because now the administration is saying that they’re going to make new leases available to drill on federal land, which is something that the president ran against. He said that he wouldn’t do that. He stopped them. So, — and I know that there’s mixed reaction to this decision about whether or not it’s being done in a way that will actually make a difference in lowering gas prices, but is that an admission that that was a mistake back then?”

Sperling responded, “No, not at all. There are many things we need to do that this period chose we need to do to have energy independence.”

He added, “One of the other things the president did is put 180 million more barrels of oil supply on the market. That was a major thing we’ve done to increase the supply of oil and ask our other countries to put another 60 million on themselves. In terms of the oil industry, we are, next year, projected to be at record production. Natural gas is at record production. We’ve always thought — known that was part of the mix in having energy independence along with things like encouraging more electric cars, encouraging more energy efficiency. And we also believe that you could do more at this time to give consumers relief across the board.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Filed Under: Uncategorized Energy, Gene Sperling, Joe Biden, Oil, oil drilling, Clips, lease a land rover, lease of land, best butcher block oil, leased hunting land, lease hunting land, federal land inc, download lease from land registry, buy oil leases, federal land for sale, oil lease for sale

SCOTUS Dodges Key Immigration Issue: Can Biden ‘Catch and Release’?

July 1, 2022 by www.breitbart.com Leave a Comment

Chief Justice John Roberts dodged the core legal and political issue in immigration policy when he and a court majority allowed the White House to stop returning migrants to Mexico before their U.S. asylum hearings.

“The essential issues, in this case, are whether the Biden administration is required to detain illegal migrants, and what are the restrictions on the Biden administration’s ability to release illegal migrants,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge who now works with the Center for Immigration Studies.

“They dodged both of those questions,” Arthur said.

“They completely punted,” added Rob Law, a lawyer and the director of the Center for Homeland Security and Immigration at the American First Policy Institute. He continued:

The Supreme Court completely avoided the critical question, which is, does “shall” actually mean “shall”? The law says that [the government] “shall detain” all of these aliens … and the whole point of [the Migrant Protection Protocols] MPP [program] was that if you don’t have the ability to detain them, then you can [temporarily] send them back [to Mexico].

“By refusing to answer the question, it … allows — for the time being — a continuation of the administration’s [catch-and-release] open border policies,” Law said.

On page 14 of the decision, the five-judge majority says :

We need not and do not decide whether the detention requirement in section 1225(b)(2)(A) is subject to principles of law enforcement discretion, as the Government argues, or whether the Government’s current practices simply violate that provision.

Roughly 100,000 economic migrants are being registered and then released into the U.S. job market each month by President Joe Biden and Border Security Chief Alejandro Mayorkas. The illegal migrants are given legal cover as would-be asylum seekers, or receive “parole,” so they legally enter the United States and are even granted work permits under a controversial legal claim.

“This catch-and-release via asylum or parole for economic migrants does economic harm to Americans and is illegal under the 1965 Immigration Act, the 2006 Secure Fence Act, and the constitution’s requirement that the president ‘take care’ to enforce the laws,” said Arthur.

But the Court dodged those legal disputes and instead decided that the administration does not have to continue using President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, which is also called the “Migration Protection Protocols” (MPP). The court’s statement said:

Held : The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act], and [so] the October 29 Memoranda [cancelling MPP] constituted final agency action.

Trump’s policy used a provision in the law to send migrants back to Mexico until they could be brought back into the United States for their immigration hearings.

The program was very successful because it changed the economics of international migration.

The economic migrants arriving at the U.S. border can fund their dangerous and expensive trip to the United States because they know they will quickly become employed at U.S. jobs to repay mortgages or debts to smugglers. This process reshapes the U.S. and the foreign economies, and so it pulls and pushes foreigners to become workers, consumers, and renters in the U.S. economy.

But the MPP program broke that colonial-style relationship.

When MPP is operating, the migrants who apply at the border for asylum are quickly returned to Mexico. They cannot get the jobs needed to pay their debts, so there is little incentive for them to become migrants with unpayable debts to coyotes and cartels. This means they are more likely to stay at home and to push for the domestic economic and political reforms that are needed to help their countries engage in beneficial trade with the United States.

Once President Donald Trump was out of office, the Biden administration canceled the MPP program and rebuilt the conveyor belt.

Since early 2021, Biden’s deputies have admitted perhaps 2 million southern migrants, including many who sneaked past distracted border guards. That elite-invited migrant wave forces down wages for blue-collar Americans, pushes up rental prices, and reduces pressure on CEOs to spend profits on productivity-boosting technology.

However, after allowing Biden to cancel MPP, the court also allowed a lower court in the Fifth Circuit of Texas to review the cancellation process under the terms set by the Administration Procedures Act (APA). The judges said:

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 . See State Farm, 463 U. S., at 46–57.

“There’ll be a new APA analysis of the latest memo that Mayorkas issued [to cancel] the MPP,” said Arthur, adding:

[Justice Sam] Alito in the [minority] dissent, and [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh in a [majority] concurrence, both said, you need to assess whether there’s a public benefit to releasing people into the United States versus sending them back to Mexico … There’s nothing [in law] that interprets the words “significant public benefit” so it is whatever they want to make it … But nobody’s ever interpreted a “significant public benefit” as “Well, we can save on detention space.”

Congress has been clear that [parole] is supposed to be something that’s only rarely used, but when it’s used 40,000 times a month, that isn’t rarely used.

However, in 1996, Arthur noted, “Congress narrowed the parole provision … because they were upset that the Executive Branch was allowing parole to be used as an end-run for immigration programs that Congress didn’t want.”

Also, state Governors and Attorneys General can start again with new lawsuits asking the court to direct compliance with the federal laws requiring the exclusion and detention of migrants, said Arthur:

They can ask the [courts to make the] government not only enforce Section 235(b) and 212.5(b) … they can file a mandamus action asking that the court enforce the Secure Fence Act of 2006 which requires the Secretary to achieve operational control of the southwest border … Congress is pretty specific in the Secure Fence Act about what operational control means — it means preventing the entry of any unlawful alien into the United States.

“The states are going to have to bring a lawsuit that goes to the heart of [the] parole [law],” said Law. “What the states need to do in response is to challenge the [Biden’s use of] parole authority because it is blatantly being abused in a categorical [not a case-by-case] fashion, with absolutely no adherence to the very narrow requirements for when an alien should qualify for it,” he added.

Alito’s dissent guided the lower judges:

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.

But that legal process is slow — especially if the Supreme Court wants to decide the issue.

“When it comes to immigration, the Roberts court seems to want to side with the alien, regardless of what our laws actually say,” said Law. “Roberts wants to be sympathetic to the aliens, regardless of what our immigration laws say about eligibility or legality, or mandatory detention.”

The simplest and quickest fix for any GOP majority in 2023 is to bar Biden’s administration from spending any funds granting parole to migrants, said Arthur:

What I think is a lot more likely is if there is a Republican Congress, they’re going to use the power of the purse, they’re going to take away money from DHS [if it tries to] parole everybody and their brother.

They’re also going to say to the Biden administration, “How much detention space do you need? Because that’s how much we’re going to fund.”

Business-backed pro-migration groups, however, are eager to use the court’s partial decision on MPP to further expand the parole-enabled extraction of many foreign consumers, renters, and workers from poor countries.

The fact that Kavanaugh leads with DHS’s authority to grant parole should be a signal to the Biden administration to start using parole much more broadly than it currently is. Let them come legally. https://t.co/foK06acoIt pic.twitter.com/OkK7JaaNjy

— David Bier (@David_J_Bier) June 30, 2022

Alito’s dissent — signed by Justice Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — offers a guide to the next wave of lawsuits seeking to curb Biden’s open-door policies:

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?

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.” 8 U. S. C. §1225(b)(2)(A) (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. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 13).

Congress offered the Executive two—and only—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.” §1225(b)(2)(C). 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.” §1182(d)(5)(A).

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.

The case is Biden v. Texas , No. 21–954 in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Filed Under: Uncategorized U.S. Supreme Court, Immigration, how to issue a press release, catch & release, immigration issues united states, europe immigration issues, germany immigration issues, key ethical issues, key ethical issues in business, arizona immigration issues, mp help with immigration issue, help with immigration issues

Copyright © 2022 Search. Power by Wordpress.
Home - About Us - Contact Us - Disclaimers - DMCA - Privacy Policy - Submit your story