Biden and His Immigration Issues

Published in El Heraldo
(Mexico) on 18 October 2021
by José Carreño Figueras (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Mercedes Vetere. Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.
A court’s rejection of an initial attempt to end the Trump-era policy is Joe Biden’s most immediate problem.

The ever-complicated immigration issue in the U.S. has become a touchstone of the Biden administration. The government faces a complex political situation, restrained by its promises and the constraints imposed by the current situation and the courts, in particular.

This issue became more evident on Oct. 16, when dozens of immigration advocates walked out of a virtual meeting with several of Joe Biden's top administration officials to protest their decision to reimplement the border policies enacted by the openly anti-immigrant administration of Donald Trump.

Before the beginning of the video meeting with the officials, including the White House Domestic Policy Council for Immigration’s Deputy Director Esther Olavarria, the activists read a statement accusing the administration of "playing politics with human lives" and they said they could no longer "come into these conversations in good conscience."

The meeting and subsequent walkout were prompted by the administration's plans to reinstate the Migrant Protection Protocols, also known as the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

The immediate problem for Biden is that a court rejected his initial attempt to end the Trump policy. The administration said it would restart the program that forces migrants to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearings in November.

The judicial decision surprised no one. During his administration, Trump rushed to fill federal judicial positions at the lowest level, such as district judges, and at the highest level, at the Supreme Court, to ensure an ideological —if not partisan— viewpoint.

Trump appointed 226 judges in four years, including 54 in the federal appellate courts and three of the nine Supreme Court justices. By way of comparison, Barack Obama appointed 320 judges in his eight years in office, including 55 federal appellate judges..

This shows that activist groups are seeking to secure favorable rulings on their cases. A liberal group will want their case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals out West, considered one of the most —if not the most— liberal appellate courts in the country.

On the other hand, conservative groups —especially anti-immigrant and anti-abortion groups— hope to have their cases heard by the federal courts in Texas, where the most conservative judges are seated. Thus, it is no accident that cases seeking to uphold Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy were favorably decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas, and upheld last Aug. 24 by the Supreme Court,* where the conservative wing holds six of the nine seats.

The Biden administration appealed the Texas abortion law, but failed to enjoin it, and is obligated to go along with the Texas rule.

However, it is probably easier to negotiate with Mexico and support economic and social programs in Central America than to change the situation in the U.S.





Biden y sus problemas migratorios
Para el Presidente estadounidense, la dificultad inmediata es que un tribunal rechazó su intento inicial de acabar con la política de la era Trump
La siempre enrevesada cuestión migratoria se ha convertido en una piedra de toque para el gobierno de Joe Biden, que enfrenta una complicada situación política, encerrada por sus promesas y las limitaciones que le impone la realidad y los tribunales.
El problema quedó ilustrado el sábado, cuando "decenas de defensores de la inmigración" abandonaron una reunión virtual con varios de los principales colaboradores de Biden como protesta por su decisión de continuar las políticas fronterizas promulgadas por el abiertamente antiinmigrante gobierno de Donald Trump.
Según una publicación en politico.com, antes de un encuentro virtual con los funcionarios, incluso Esther Olavarria del Consejo de Política Nacional de la Casa Blanca, los activistas leyeron un comunicado en el que acusaban a la administración de "jugar a la política con vidas humanas" y anotaban que ya no podían "entrar a las conversaciones con buena conciencia".
La reunión y la posterior salida fueron motivadas por los planes de la administración para restablecer los Protocolos de Protección al Migrante, es decir la política de "Permanecer en nuestro país".
Para el gobierno de Biden, el problema inmediato es que un tribunal rechazó su intento inicial de acabar con la política de la era Trump y su anuncio de que restablecerá en noviembre la práctica de obligar a los presuntos migrantes a esperar sus audiencias de asilo en México.
La decisión judicial no sorprendió a nadie. Durante su gobierno, Trump se apresuró a llenar posiciones judiciales federales, de las más bajas, como los jueces de distrito, hasta las más altas, en la Suprema Corte, para asegurar una visión ideológica, si no partisana.
Trump nombró 226 jueces en cuatro años; de los cuales 54 en Cortes de Apelación y tres de nueve en la Suprema Corte. Por vía de comparación, su predecesor, Barack Obama, designó en sus ocho años a 320 magistrados, incluso 55 en las Cortes de Apelación.
Esto implica que grupos de activistas busquen asegurarse audiencias favorables al presentar sus demandas. Un grupo liberal plantearía sus demandas ante la Novena Corte de Circuito, en San Francisco, considerada como una de las más, si no la más liberal, del país.
Los grupos conservadores, especialmente los antiimigrantes o antiaborto, por su parte, suelen acudir a tribunales federales establecidos en Texas, con los juristas más conservadores. Así, no es ningún accidente que las demandas para sostener la política trumpista de "permanecer en México" hayan sido aprobadas por una corte de Texas y apoyadas el 21 de agosto pasado por la Suprema Corte de Justicia estadounidense, donde el ala conservadora tiene seis de los nueve jueces.
El gobierno de Biden apeló a las restricciones, pero está obligado a seguir la ley en vigencia.
No obstante, es probable que sea más fácil negociar con México y apoyar programas económicos y sociales en Centroamérica que cambiar la situación en EEUU.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Donald Trump Is Taking Over the US Federal Reserve and Financial Markets Have Missed the Point

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Topics

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Poland: Ukraine Is Still Far from Peace. What Was Actually Decided at the White House?

Ireland: Irish Examiner View: Would We Miss Donald Trump and Would a Successor Be Worse?

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Related Articles

Guyana: Guyana’s Ongoing Subservience to the US, Jagdeo’s Really

Argentina: Trump’s Immigration Crackdown Is a Reminder That the Scorpion Always Stings

South Africa: Litmus Test for SADC Unity in the Wake of US Military Overtures

France: Ukraine: Avoiding the Trap of the Russia-US Summit in Alaska

Mexico: The Far Right: Triumph of Idiocy