{"id":5936,"date":"2021-08-28T14:53:51","date_gmt":"2021-08-28T14:53:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5936"},"modified":"2021-08-28T14:53:51","modified_gmt":"2021-08-28T14:53:51","slug":"a-trump-judge-ordered-biden-to-reinstate-one-of-trumps-cruelest-immigration-policies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=5936","title":{"rendered":"A Trump judge ordered Biden to reinstate one of Trump\u2019s cruelest immigration policies"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Almost immediately after President Joe Biden took office, his administration started to\u00a0roll back his predecessor Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d policy<\/a>, which required many asylum seekers who arrive at the United States\u2019 southern border to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing on their asylum claim.”
…
” however, a Trump-appointed judge to a federal court in Texas effectively ordered the federal government to reinstate this Trump-era policy \u2014 which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) \u2014\u00a0permanently<\/a>. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk\u2019s\u00a0opinion in\u00a0Texas v. Biden<\/em><\/a>makes the implausible argument that a federal immigration law\u00a0enacted by Congress in 1996<\/a>\u00a0makes the Remain in Mexico policy mandatory, unless the federal government detains every asylum seeker who is not sent back to Mexico.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Trump\u2019s Remain in Mexico policy was not implemented until early 2019. So the upshot of Kacsmaryk\u2019s opinion is that the federal government was in violation of this 1996 statute for half of the Clinton administration, the entire George W. Bush administration, the entire Obama administration, and most of the Trump administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


In reality, that 1996 federal law is part of a web of statutes and constitutional doctrines giving immigration officials multiple options when an asylum seeker arrives at the US-Mexico border. One provision of federal immigration law provides that most of these asylum seekers \u201cshall be detained<\/a>\u201d while they await a hearing.”\u00a0\u00a0
…
“Kacsmaryk\u2019s decision, moreover, is expected to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the country \u2014 and then potentially to a Supreme Court where Republican appointees have a 6-3 supermajority.
So, while Kacsmaryk\u2019s opinion is wrong on the law, there is no guarantee that it will be reversed by a higher court.”\u00a0
…
“Kacsmaryk is one of many Trump appointees to the federal bench who appears to have been chosen\u00a0largely due to his unusually conservative political views<\/a>. Prior to becoming a judge, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, a firm that largely litigates on behalf of causes of the religious right. In his past writings, he labeled being transgender a \u201cmental disorder\u201d and claimed that gay people are \u201cdisordered.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As recently as 2015<\/a>, Kacsmaryk published an article denouncing a \u201cSexual Revolution\u201d that \u201csought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 He\u2019s also the third conservative federal judge in Texas to strike down an immigration policy supported by the Biden administration.”  
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The Supreme Court\u2019s decisions are supposed to give federal officials a great deal of discretion to shape immigration policy \u2014 and to afford mercy to individual immigrants. As the Court explained in Arizona v. United States<\/em><\/a> (2012) \u201ca principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But judges like Kacsmaryk, Tipton, and Hanen appear eager to strip the Biden administration of that discretion. With a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court overseeing the judiciary, these judges may very well get away with it.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.vox.com\/2021\/8\/17\/22627107\/trump-judge-remain-in-mexico-matthew-kacsmaryk-immigration-asylum-joe-biden-donald-trump<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Almost immediately after President Joe Biden took office, his administration started to roll back his predecessor Donald Trump\u2019s \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d policy, which required many asylum seekers who arrive at the United States\u2019 southern border to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing on their asylum claim.”<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

” however, a Trump-appointed judge to a federal court in Texas effectively ordered the federal government to reinstate this Trump-era policy \u2014 which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) \u2014 permanently. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk\u2019s opinion in Texas v. Biden makes the implausible argument that a federal immigration law enacted by Congress in 1996 makes the Remain in Mexico policy mandatory, unless the federal government detains every asylum seeker who is not sent back to Mexico.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s Remain in Mexico policy was not implemented until early 2019. So the upshot of Kacsmaryk\u2019s opinion is that the federal government was in violation of this 1996 statute for half of the Clinton administration, the entire George W. Bush administration, the entire Obama administration, and most of the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

In reality, that 1996 federal law is part of a web of statutes and constitutional doctrines giving immigration officials multiple options when an asylum seeker arrives at the US-Mexico border. One provision of federal immigration law provides that most of these asylum seekers \u201cshall be detained\u201d while they await a hearing.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Kacsmaryk\u2019s decision, moreover, is expected to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative courts in the country \u2014 and then potentially to a Supreme Court where Republican appointees have a 6-3 supermajority.<\/p>\n

So, while Kacsmaryk\u2019s opinion is wrong on the law, there is no guarantee that it will be reversed by a higher court.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“Kacsmaryk is one of many Trump appointees to the federal bench who appears to have been chosen largely due to his unusually conservative political views. Prior to becoming a judge, Kacsmaryk was deputy general counsel for the First Liberty Institute, a firm that largely litigates on behalf of causes of the religious right. In his past writings, he labeled being transgender a \u201cmental disorder\u201d and claimed that gay people are \u201cdisordered.\u201d
\nAs recently as 2015, Kacsmaryk published an article denouncing a \u201cSexual Revolution\u201d that \u201csought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.\u201d<\/p>\n

He\u2019s also the third conservative federal judge in Texas to strike down an immigration policy supported by the Biden administration.” <\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

“The Supreme Court\u2019s decisions are supposed to give federal officials a great deal of discretion to shape immigration policy \u2014 and to afford mercy to individual immigrants. As the Court explained in Arizona v. United States (2012) \u201ca principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.\u201d<\/p>\n

But judges like Kacsmaryk, Tipton, and Hanen appear eager to strip the Biden administration of that discretion. With a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court overseeing the judiciary, these judges may very well get away with it.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[790,221,25,780,332,1213],"class_list":["post-5936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article-share","tag-courts","tag-donald-trump","tag-immigration","tag-joe-biden","tag-judge","tag-judiciary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5936","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5936"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5936\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5937,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5936\/revisions\/5937"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}