Title 42 to remain in place for now as Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily freezes order meant to end it

[Scott]

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday put a temporary hold on the termination of a controversial Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42 that was set to end on December 21, leaving it in place for now.

But in a brief order Roberts signaled that the court wants to act quickly and asked the Biden administration to respond by 5 p.m. ET Tuesday to an emergency appeal filed by a group of Republican-led states.

The brief order from Roberts means the policy that allows officials to swiftly expel migrants at the US border will stay in effect at least until the justices decide the emergency application. The order does not necessarily reflect the final outcome of the case.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/politics/title-42-supreme-court-gop-states/index.html

[Tug]

Well will this get the republicans to cooperate and come to the table to reform immigration law I doubt it it’s to good of a club to beat the democrats with even though the dems have been trying for years to reform the immigration laws 

[Hanaguma]

Good.

Just look at the photo. Those are not starving refugees, fleeing imminent death.  Looks like a lot of healthy young people, mostly men.  Not families on the run from death squads.They look like people who just stepped off a bus and are going for a walk in the countryside. Not to mention the trash and mess they are leaving behind.  They can't even pick up after themselves to show a bit of respect for the country they want to enter. 

[Scott]

13 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Good.

Just look at the photo. Those are not starving refugees, fleeing imminent death.  Looks like a lot of healthy young people, mostly men.  Not families on the run from death squads.They look like people who just stepped off a bus and are going for a walk in the countryside. Not to mention the trash and mess they are leaving behind.  They can't even pick up after themselves to show a bit of respect for the country they want to enter. 

To be considered a refugee you do not need to be starving or in imminent fear of death.  You need to demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

 

I note that there were few people expressing concern about the Ukrainian refugees that were quite well dressed and well nourished. 

[Hanaguma]

39 minutes ago, Scott said:

To be considered a refugee you do not need to be starving or in imminent fear of death.  You need to demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

 

I note that there were few people expressing concern about the Ukrainian refugees that were quite well dressed and well nourished. 

Yes, and they all look remarkably un-persecuted and well rested, despite travelling thousands of kilometers to arrive at the US border. It is patently obvious that most are simply seeking economic opportunity. Which explains why remarkably few families can be seen trying to cross into the US.  They are not seeking refuge until it is safe to return to their respective countries. They are trying to migrate permanently. 

 

As for the Ukranians, I agree with you.  They could just as easily have stayed in the safe regions of their own country.  I have no desire to host them in mine. At worst, they can be housed in neighboring lands for a fraction of the cost to send them by air to distant lands.  

[Scott]

39 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, and they all look remarkably un-persecuted and well rested, despite travelling thousands of kilometers to arrive at the US border. It is patently obvious that most are simply seeking economic opportunity. Which explains why remarkably few families can be seen trying to cross into the US.  They are not seeking refuge until it is safe to return to their respective countries. They are trying to migrate permanently. 

 

As for the Ukranians, I agree with you.  They could just as easily have stayed in the safe regions of their own country.  I have no desire to host them in mine. At worst, they can be housed in neighboring lands for a fraction of the cost to send them by air to distant lands.  

I spent many years screening refugees.  If past trends occur, then I suspect the very vast majority will have no credible claim to refugee status.  There are a couple of problems that need to be addressed and that is the huge number of people who have been denied the right to make an asylum claim.  Many of these people have been at the border awaiting the ability to make their case. 

 

The process at the Southern Border has been that there is a preliminary screening and if the person does not pass that, then they are given the option of being deported or self-deport. 

People can be poor and be refugees.  Economic factors are not grounds for granting of refugee status.  Sadly, many of the people that I screened in various countries were desperately poor, but it didn't make a difference.  If they have a well-founded fear of persecution they are screened in; if not, they are returned. 

 

I don't know the exact status of the Ukrainians, but during the Bosnian conflict, most people were not given refugee status, they were granted temporary asylum.  There was no reason to believe that once the war was over that they could not return.  

 

Many of the people from Central America do have a good claim for refugee status.

 

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I spent many years screening refugees.  If past trends occur, then I suspect the very vast majority will have no credible claim to refugee status.  There are a couple of problems that need to be addressed and that is the huge number of people who have been denied the right to make an asylum claim.  Many of these people have been at the border awaiting the ability to make their case. 

 

The process at the Southern Border has been that there is a preliminary screening and if the person does not pass that, then they are given the option of being deported or self-deport. 

People can be poor and be refugees.  Economic factors are not grounds for granting of refugee status.  Sadly, many of the people that I screened in various countries were desperately poor, but it didn't make a difference.  If they have a well-founded fear of persecution they are screened in; if not, they are returned. 

 

I don't know the exact status of the Ukrainians, but during the Bosnian conflict, most people were not given refugee status, they were granted temporary asylum.  There was no reason to believe that once the war was over that they could not return.  

 

Many of the people from Central America do have a good claim for refugee status.

 

I think you may have hit the problem- the "option of being deported or self deporting". How many will choose the latter and then simply refuse to do so?  I think the American case is rather different than in other countries because the motivation is primarily economic. 

 

This is how the US ended up with a shadow population of perhaps up to 20 million people.  Reagan granted a one time amnesty, decades ago. Yet the problem persisted. To me, a well run guest worker program would be a decent start if it would ease the crisis at the border, but only when done in conjunction with actual security along the southern frontier.

[Berkshire]

I think we all know the root cause of this immigration problem, which is the corrupt and lawless countries that these people are fleeing from.  America can't do much about that, but our elected officials--Reps and Dems--can at least come up with a reasonable plan to deal with this.  But no, the proverbial can just keeps getting kicked down the road.   

 

It seems many Republicans (not on the border) are just gleeful at the sight of thousands of migrants at the border.  Because it gives them an issue to attack the Dems with.  NOBODY wants an open border, but it's amazing that the right can convince their flock that the Dems want this.  I wish the Republicans can provide a solution, but they've got nothing.  Except to seal the border shut.     

[Scott]

57 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I think you may have hit the problem- the "option of being deported or self deporting". How many will choose the latter and then simply refuse to do so?  I think the American case is rather different than in other countries because the motivation is primarily economic. 

 

This is how the US ended up with a shadow population of perhaps up to 20 million people.  Reagan granted a one time amnesty, decades ago. Yet the problem persisted. To me, a well run guest worker program would be a decent start if it would ease the crisis at the border, but only when done in conjunction with actual security along the southern frontier.

You are wrong.  Self deportation does not mean you get released and leave at your own will.  It means the Immigration people do not have to go through a deportation hearing.  You agree to leave voluntarily and then you are escorted out of the country.  If you self deport the option of entering the US under a legal visa is still an option.  If you are deported, you will never get a visa.  

 

Once people enter the US, they may end up eligible to remain for example by marrying a US citizen or by having a child that is a US.  In order to remain, however, an immigrant petition still needs to be filed.  Quite frequently it isn't, but if the person is arrested, it's an obvious obstacle to deportation.  

 

If a petition is filed, the person may have to wait years before their case is heard.  

 

It is imperative that asylum cases be heard and adjudicated quickly.  

And just to be clear, I have handled asylum cases in the US. 

 

[Tug]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

You are wrong.  Self deportation does not mean you get released and leave at your own will.  It means the Immigration people do not have to go through a deportation hearing.  You agree to leave voluntarily and then you are escorted out of the country.  If you self deport the option of entering the US under a legal visa is still an option.  If you are deported, you will never get a visa.  

 

Once people enter the US, they may end up eligible to remain for example by marrying a US citizen or by having a child that is a US.  In order to remain, however, an immigrant petition still needs to be filed.  Quite frequently it isn't, but if the person is arrested, it's an obvious obstacle to deportation.  

 

If a petition is filed, the person may have to wait years before their case is heard.  

 

It is imperative that asylum cases be heard and adjudicated quickly.  

And just to be clear, I have handled asylum cases in the US. 

 

Mr Scott thank you for your service and for your dose of factual information on this important matter  blessings to you and yours

[EVENKEEL]

9 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I think we all know the root cause of this immigration problem, which is the corrupt and lawless countries that these people are fleeing from.  America can't do much about that, but our elected officials--Reps and Dems--can at least come up with a reasonable plan to deal with this.  But no, the proverbial can just keeps getting kicked down the road.   

 

It seems many Republicans (not on the border) are just gleeful at the sight of thousands of migrants at the border.  Because it gives them an issue to attack the Dems with.  NOBODY wants an open border, but it's amazing that the right can convince their flock that the Dems want this.  I wish the Republicans can provide a solution, but they've got nothing.  Except to seal the border shut.     

Biden visiting the border long ago would have been a start to show a smidgen of concern.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Biden visiting the border long ago would have been a start to show a smidgen of concern.

He might have been busy with an actual invasion instead of an imaginary one.

[EVENKEEL]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

He might have been busy with an actual invasion instead of an imaginary one.

Please stop with the nonsense. Biden knows what he'll find if he goes to the border. Biden and Harris is pathetic.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Please stop with the nonsense. Biden knows what he'll find if he goes to the border. Biden and Harris is pathetic.

Yeah, nah. Biden has deported nearly as many immigrants as Trump but somehow that isn't acknowledged and Biden sued to keep Title 42, a Trump initiative.  Care to do it now?

 

Source previously posted.

Edited December 20, 2022 by ozimoron

[Keep Right]

Thank you Justice Roberts for your wise decision. Of course old sleepy Joe will be angry now that his illegal Mexicans will temporarily be stopped from impeding on the United States sovereign ground.

[ozimoron]

24 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

Thank you Justice Roberts for your wise decision. Of course old sleepy Joe will be angry now that his illegal Mexicans will temporarily be stopped from impeding on the United States sovereign ground.

Title 42 was all about protecting America from covid brought in by immigrants. So, is covid still a problem or was it really not about covid after all?

[EVENKEEL]

22 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Title 42 was all about protecting America from covid brought in by immigrants. So, is covid still a problem or was it really not about covid after all?

The term immigrant makes the law breaking illegals sound so much better.

[ozimoron]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

The term immigrant makes the law breaking illegals sound so much better.

You deflected instead of answering my question. If title 42 eeds to be replaced with other legislation then fine. Meanwhile, where is the covid issue that title 42 was predicated on?

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Berkshire said:

NOBODY wants an open border, but it's amazing that the right can convince their flock that the Dems want this.  I wish the Republicans can provide a solution, but they've got nothing.  Except to seal the border shut.     

Do tell. When Biden stops the wall being worked on leaving lots of gaps it sure seems like he and the Democrats want an open border.

Sealing the border is a solution, even if not your preferred option.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Reagan granted a one time amnesty, decades ago. Yet the problem persisted.

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/todays-immigration-debate-rooted-reagan-amnesty-experts-say

But whatever specific policies are being fought over now, immigration experts say the problem took root at least 30 years ago, when President Ronald Reagan signed a 1986 immigration law that has become known as the “Reagan Amnesty” and allowed roughly 3 million people in the country illegally to gain legal status.

The 1986 law was intended to create a new era of enforcement, including strict enforcement of the new law that barred employers from hiring workers who don’t have permission to work in the United States. But that never fully materialized.

[EVENKEEL]

8 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You deflected instead of answering my question. If title 42 eeds to be replaced with other legislation then fine. Meanwhile, where is the covid issue that title 42 was predicated on?

Are you saying covid is no longer an issue?

 

Whatever it takes to keep the migrants out till their hearing date.

[Tug]

9 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

The term immigrant makes the law breaking illegals sound so much better.

Ahhhh you do know they have a legal right to apply for asylum don’t you?therefore they aren’t breaking the law as it is written perhaps if republicans would come to the table to help change the laws things would change just saying 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ahhhh you do know they have a legal right to apply for asylum don’t you?therefore they aren’t breaking the law as it is written perhaps if republicans would come to the table to help change the laws things would change just saying 

I doubt Republicans will change the law to make it easier for people to immigrate, which IMO is what Democrats want.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I doubt Republicans will change the law to make it easier for people to immigrate, which IMO is what Democrats want.

That's projection. You have no clue what Democrats want.

[Hanaguma]

6 hours ago, Tug said:

Ahhhh you do know they have a legal right to apply for asylum don’t you?therefore they aren’t breaking the law as it is written perhaps if republicans would come to the table to help change the laws things would change just saying 

My understanding is that asylum seekers must present themselves at designated points of entry into the US.  Simply crossing the border at any point is a crime, regardless of the intention.  

[Scott]

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

My understanding is that asylum seekers must present themselves at designated points of entry into the US.  Simply crossing the border at any point is a crime, regardless of the intention.  

It is a misdemeanor and carries no incarceration.  The vast majority of those crossing do present themselves to Border agents.  Those long lines sitting on the US side of the border are awaiting preliminary processing by agents.  

 

For those who do not, they have up to one year to make a claim.  Most asylees make contact immediately after entering.  

[riclag]

SC is Gonna hear arguments !

Americans Need the help of the guys and gals in the black robes !

“The Supreme Court temporarily halted the termination of Title 42 on Tuesday, allowing the Trump-era policy to remain in place until the justices hear a challenge from Republican-led states in February. 
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-halts-termination-title-42-will-hear-case-february

Edited December 27, 2022 by riclag

[Credo]

Supreme Court says Trump-era border restriction will remain in effect while legal challenges play out

The Supreme Court said Tuesday that the controversial Trump-era border restriction known as Title 42 will remain in effect while legal challenges play out, a move that ensures that federal officials will be able to continue to swiftly expel migrants at US borders at least for the next several months.

 

The 5-4 order is a victory for Republican-led states that urged the Supreme Court to step in and block a lower court opinion that ordered the termination of the authority. The Biden administration has said it was prepared for the authority to end and had put in place precautions to guard against confusion at the border and any potential surge of migrants.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/27/politics/supreme-court-title-42/index.html