• December 4, 2022

Sotomayor Sits It Out: SCOTUS Sides With Trump

Justice Sotomayor took President Trump’s advice and recused herself from one of the cases she recently ranted about. The other eight justices sided with the administration to allow migrants to “remain in Mexico” while their asylum claims are pending.

Sotomayor sidelined by prejudice

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has made it abundantly clear that she is biased against the Trump administration on cases related to immigration policies. She did the right thing and recused herself from considering whether to force migrants to wait in Mexico or not.

Sotomayor wasn’t a crucial vote so her decision to sit this one out wouldn’t have made a difference in the final outcome on this temporary decision. It only affects things until the final legal challenges are resolved.

Over a year ago, President Donald Trump ordered the controversial policy, officially called the “Migrant Protection Protocols.” There are so many migrants stacked up outside the gates that if the measure was blocked, as the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tried to do, there would be an overwhelming “rush to the border.”

A flood of illegal aliens

In the short period of time between the appeals court suspending the policy and the issuance of a temporary stay of that order, there was instant “chaos.” Government lawyers argued “Large groups of migrants in Mexico began arriving at multiple ports of entry along the Southwest border seeking immediate entry into the country.”

Without the program we would be quickly invaded. “Tens of thousands of migrants are likely to resume attempting to enter the United States.” They’re begging for asylum but their claims are “often without merit, forcing DHS to undertake the overwhelming burden of detaining many of those aliens in the United States throughout removal proceedings.”

Especially dangerous now

Robert Perez, the deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, is convinced that blocking the remain in Mexico provisions would mean “significant numbers of individuals entering the country.” It would overwhelm our already burdened resources. “This is particularly concerning given the current outbreak of the coronavirus.”

As of now, there aren’t any plans to shut the border down but “CBP is working with the CDC to identify arriving travelers who have been in mainland China or Iran within the previous 14 days, as they require enhanced health screening.”

It’s normal for people to cross the border for health care in both directions. “Many San Diegans use the health care system in Mexico and it’s a different system than ours. We are a true binational community in which we have these regular means of communication on these issues.”

Advocates are furious

The alternative is the red carpet catch and release policy of Barack Obama’s administration. “releasing them on parole into the interior, where many will simply disappear.” That’s exactly what the open border advocates want.

Since Trump’s policy went into effect, “reports of murder, rape, torture kidnapping, and other violent assaults against returned asylum seekers have climbed.” The appeals court wrote, “Uncontested evidence in the record establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico, risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum.”

The administration notes that’s a Mexican problem. What we’re seeing is things getting a lot safer on our side of the border. Solicitor General Noel Francisco explains, the policy has “dramatically curtailed the number of aliens approaching or attempting to cross the border.”

Patriots Beacon