Posted on Apr 27, 2022
Supreme Court's conservatives divided over 'Remain in Mexico' policy
877
12
3
7
7
0
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/26/ [login to see] /supreme-court-weighs-biden-admins-cancellation-of-remain-in-mexico-policy
At the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, the conservative justices seemed unusually torn as to whether the Biden administration must continue to enforce the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" program. The policy requires asylum seekers, mainly from Central and South America, to either be detained in the U.S. or stay in Mexico while they wait for months or years for hearings.
Oral arguments are not always conclusive, and sometimes the justices wallop the lawyers on one side, and then turn around and deliver equally brutal blows to the other side. That's what several key conservative justices did on Tuesday, as they considered whether the Biden administration can revoke the Trump-era policy.
At the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, the conservative justices seemed unusually torn as to whether the Biden administration must continue to enforce the Trump-era "Remain in Mexico" program. The policy requires asylum seekers, mainly from Central and South America, to either be detained in the U.S. or stay in Mexico while they wait for months or years for hearings.
Oral arguments are not always conclusive, and sometimes the justices wallop the lawyers on one side, and then turn around and deliver equally brutal blows to the other side. That's what several key conservative justices did on Tuesday, as they considered whether the Biden administration can revoke the Trump-era policy.
Supreme Court's conservatives divided over 'Remain in Mexico' policy
Posted from npr.org
Donald Trump
Joe Biden
Supreme Court
Immigration
Refugees
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
One solution:
Finance a more effective, larger, justice system. This should apply across the board, for all levels of courts.
Finance a more effective, larger, justice system. This should apply across the board, for all levels of courts.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
0
0
0
Nina conflates two things here, which MASSIVELY changes the question at hand.
She is usually pretty good at summating the arguments and questions of SCOTUS - she has been on that beat for a LONG time. So I do not know if the conflation here is hers, or it was Prelogar's or the court's. But...
The policy is about ASYLUM SEEKERS. But then she discusses the radically high number of BORDER CROSSINGS. 220,000 border crossers does not equal 220,000 Asylum seekers. I do not know what the number is. But if the number were only, say, 25,000, then the administration CAN comply with the policy.
(Of course, the administration would never admit that while trying to get rid of the policy.)
She is usually pretty good at summating the arguments and questions of SCOTUS - she has been on that beat for a LONG time. So I do not know if the conflation here is hers, or it was Prelogar's or the court's. But...
The policy is about ASYLUM SEEKERS. But then she discusses the radically high number of BORDER CROSSINGS. 220,000 border crossers does not equal 220,000 Asylum seekers. I do not know what the number is. But if the number were only, say, 25,000, then the administration CAN comply with the policy.
(Of course, the administration would never admit that while trying to get rid of the policy.)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google