A new Supreme Court case could blow up decades of US diplomacy

Vox ^ | 8/24/21 | Ian Millhouser

[EBH]

Texas v. Biden, a case with profound implications for American foreign policy, reached the Supreme Court with lightning speed.

On August 13, a judge in Texas appointed by then-President Donald Trump effectively ordered the Biden administration to permanently reinstate Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. That policy, which is officially known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), requires many immigrants who seek asylum in the United States to stay in Mexico while they await a hearing.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion in Texas was wrong for many reasons, including that he completely misread federal immigration law. Kacsmaryk wrote that a 1996 federal law only gives “the government two options vis-à-vis aliens seeking asylum: (1) mandatory detention; or (2) return to a contiguous territory.” Federal immigration law actually gives immigration officials several options, including granting “parole into the United States” to individual immigrants or releasing the immigrant on “bond of at least $1,500.”

Immigration policy is foreign policy The Supreme Court hasn’t just spent generations warning judges not to get involved with foreign relations; it’s explicitly stated that US immigration policy is an integral part of our foreign policy. Although the Supreme Court was often criticized during the Trump administration, including by some of the Court’s own members, for showing excessive deference to Trump’s immigration policies, the principle that courts should be reluctant to interfere with foreign relations generally — and with immigration policy in particular — long predates Trump.

[narses]

As a matter of fact, nope.

[amihow]

He martials facts and law to support his position without examining the full picture.
........
Bingo. And not very cleverly or convincingly.

[Vigilanteman]

Some decent news for a change. Even the compromised Roberts sided with the rule of law this time.

There is no good legal basis for treating someone differently just because they waltz over a land border versus arriving at an international airport.