Mexican President Blames Border Crisis on Joe Biden’s Immigration Rhetoric during Press Conference

Mexico's President Says Biden's Promise of Better Treatment for Migrants  Causing Border Surge

Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is the latest critic of President Joe Biden’s rhetoric around illegal immigration to come forward as the crisis at the border intensifies.

Obrador said Biden set “expectations” around the treatment of migrants which encouraged many to take the dangerous trek across the American continent, after a meeting between U.S. and Mexican officials on how the countries should handle the illegal immigration moving forward.

“People do not go the the United States for pleasure, they go out of necessity, so we have to support the development of Central America and the south of Mexico,” he said. “Expectations were created that with the government of President Biden he would see better treatment of migrants and this has caused Central Americans migrants and also from our country to want to cross the border thinking that it is easier.”

Democrats are calling it a problem and Republicans label it a crisis. While terminology differs, we do know Customs and Border Patrol encountered 100,441 migrants attempting to cross the Southern border in February alone. According to CBP, almost 30,000 unaccompanied minors were apprehended at the border in the first two months of this year.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said “we are on pace to encounter more individuals on the southwest border than we have in the last 20 years.”

Biden’s response to an uptick in crossings starting in April 2020 was to loosen border regulations. In the first couple weeks of his administration, Biden canceled the Southern border wall project, attempted to place a 100-day moratorium on deportations, and reversed Trump’s ‘remain in Mexico’ policy, which mandated migrants to wait in Mexico while their asylum applications are processed.

Mexico’s president went on to praise Biden’s general immigration policy, despite his criticism moments ago, “we have been pointing out that President Biden’s immigration policy is very good, but that it will take time.”

U.S. and Mexican leaders are calling for increased investment into South American countries where the vast majority of migrants originate. From interviews and discussions with people making the journey, the chief reasons for seeking asylum are job opportunities and high local crime rates.

Biden has floated a $4 billion humanitarian investment into South American countries with the hopes of combatting local crime and pulling people out of poverty, a plan that will surely take years, if ever, to pay off.

Earlier this month, Obrador, recognizing the surge, said “they see [Biden] as the migrant president, and so many feel they’re going to reach the United States. We need to work together to regulate the flow, because this business can’t be tackled from one day to the next.”

Biden has, in the face of increasing pressure, went on the record telling migrants to not venture to the U.S. “now,” ambiguously leaving the door open for some to assume they will be welcome some time in the future.

Judge: U.S. must Release All Migrant Children from ICE Family Detention Centers due to Coronavirus

U.S. Reps. Call On ICE To Release Migrants In Immigration ...

A U.S. district judge ordered ICE on Friday to release children held with their parents at immigration detention centers due to perceived the risk of detained children contracting Coronavirus.

According to Fox News, “U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee’s order applies to children held for more than 20 days at three family detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania operated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Some have been detained since last year.” This ruling comes a week after the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s move to rescind the Obama-era DACA policy giving immunity to illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children if they meet certain requirements,

Judge Gee set a deadline of July 17th for children to be released from the three U.S. holding facilities if they’ve resided there for more than 20 days to either their parents or an approved sponsor. Two of the three family detention centers – two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania – have seen about a dozen combined confirmed or suspected cases of Coronavirus. Over 2,500 people detained by ICE have tested positive for Coronavirus this year.

Currently, 124 children are detained at the centers in questions, “which are separate from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services facilities for unaccompanied children that were holding around 1,000 children in early June.”

The Trump Administration has been swiftly expelling migrants who attempt to enter the U.S. illegally in recent months because of the threat Coronavirus infection poses to U.S. citizens. The Associated Press reports, “border agents have been quickly placing children and teenagers on deportation flights instead of turning them over to federal facilities for placement with sponsors.” The administration’s swift removal of border crossers contributes to the lower than usual population in holding facilities.

According to Fox, “Gee’s order says ICE can decline to release a child if there is not a suitable sponsor, the child’s parent waives rights under the Flores agreement, or if there is a ‘prior unexplained failure to appear at a scheduled hearing.'” However, most migrant parents have refused to designate a sponsor for their children.

Advocates for the migrant children are calling for a de facto release of all migrants who enter the U.S. with children, claiming it would be wrong to both separate children from their families in order to live with sponsors and to keep families detained together leaving no viable option other than releasing all detainees.

Despite complaints, the Associated Press also wrote, “ICE says it has released hundreds of people deemed to have heightened exposure to the virus, though it has contested lawsuits across the country demanding the releases of others.”

“In court filings last month, ICE said it considered most of the people in family detention to be flight risks because they had pending deportation orders or cases under review,” according to Fox News.

Statistically, children under 18 have the lowest risk of contracting Coronavirus and developing complications from the illness. They’re also the most likely to recover as this illness primarily affects the elderly and those with preexisting conditions.

Major Trump Win: Court Rules Administration can Withhold Money from Sanctuary Cities

Image result for detained aliens

Yet another win for the Trump administration’s fight against illegal immigration was delivered by a federal court yesterday when the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Department of Justice can withhold grant money from sanctuary cities whose actions go against federal immigration policy.

The court overruled a 2017 lower court decision to block the Trump administration’s ability to withhold funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, a grant offering which doles out $250 million a year to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Recent years have seen an upswing in the number of states and cities declaring themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants seeking protection against ICE and lawful deportation efforts. New Jersey, New York, California, Oregon, Washington, South Carolina, Illinois, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and D.C. have all declared themselves as such.

Sanctuary states and cities decry an unwillingness to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies and refuse to share the immigration status of individuals already arrested for other crimes with ICE. Law enforcement officers are also told to not detain illegal immigrants over their immigration status.

Now, the Department of Justice has a green light to withhold certain grants from states who cut against federal immigration policy.

In a statement, a DOJ spokesperson said, “today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities.”

“The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody.  The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws–policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”

“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement added.

Fox News reported, “The latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.” The Supreme Court has handed the current administration several wins over the last three years, including on the travel ban case and the recent “public charge” ruling.

“While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits,” Judge Raggi said in the opinion, “we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”

She added, “these conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations.  But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Dismissing the claim that the Trump administration was violating the federalist nature of government, Judge Raggi wrote, “nor [sic] can we agree with the district court that the challenged conditions impermissibly intrude on powers reserved to the States.” She cited the “spending clause” as a constitutional justification.

Federal Judge Dismisses House Democrats Case Against Trump’s Border Wall

Following the end of the longest government shutdown in US history, President Trump, who failed to secure what he viewed as sufficient border wall funding, declared a national emergency in order to divert several billion dollars away from the Department of Defense’s military construction budget towards the Department of Homeland Security.

After an unsuccessful battle with Congress, and President Trump’s first veto, Democrats failed to override the national emergency declaration and subsequently sued the president in federal court.

In an official statement when announcing intentions to sue, Speaker Pelosi said “the President’s sham emergency declaration and unlawful transfers of funds have undermined our democracy, contravening the vote of the bipartisan Congress, the will of the American people and the letter of the Constitution.”

The introduction of the Complaint reads “this case arises out of the unconstitutional actions taken by President Donald J. Trump’s Administration to construct a wall along the southern border of the United States,” and that the administration violated the “separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress;” though president Trump is not specifically named as a defendant.

Democrats in the suit point towards interviews where Trump said he did not have to declare a national emergency, but did so because it was easier. They also allege that the president violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution which dictates that all spending must originate in the House.

As I have written before, this particular case does fall under the very wide umbrella of a national emergency, which has no exact definition beyond “any special or extraordinary power,” which gives the President full discretion in what constitutes an emergency. Congressional laws also allow for the president to divert military funds to halt drug corridors along the borders.

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointed judge, refused to take sides, and swiftly dismissed the case on the grounds of a lack of standing by the Democrats. In his 24 page opinion, Judge McFadden quotes Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison by saying “province of the [C]ourt is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.” Because of this historic precedent and what he sees as the role of the judiciary, “the Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President.”

The case was decided under the assumption that this is a quarrel between two branches of government, not a violation of ones rights. Judge McFadden chose to dismiss the case because Democrats lacked the standing to sue, and the nature of the case made it so the court did not have jurisdiction to make a decision, though he noted that “the Court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers.”

The ruling also, as he mentions, had nothing to do with the cases merits, rather, it was dismissed because of standing.