The border wall and asylum policy, informally known as “stay in Mexico”, is at the heart of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. Probably not being considered until next year, the move to take both cases comes just weeks before the presidential election in which Trump is building a wall and trying to prevent undocumented immigrants from entering the U.S.
The border wall case raises concerns about the Trump administration’s efforts to relocate Pentagon funds to create additional barriers on the US-Mexico border. The lower courts have ruled that administration. The administration does not have the right to transfer billions of dollars. But in an earlier order, the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue while the appeal process was underway.
The last two cases to be heard by the court relate to the US-Mexico border.
Controversy over border wall from Pentagon w. The use of billions of dollars raises concerns about the challenge of building parts of the wall on the southwestern border – spread across three states, including protected public land.
After Congress rejected most of the administration’s funding requests throughout 2018, Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border in February 2019 and the Department of Homeland Security requested the Department of Defense’s assistance in building “fences, roads, and lighting.” Block the drug-smuggling corridor.
Environmental groups represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as lawyers in California and New Mexico, argued that the secretary had exceeded his authority in an attempt to encircle Congress.
The administration says the transfer of funds was legal for national security purposes. “Challenging transfers have allowed the DHS to build more than 100 miles of fencing (and associated roads and lighting) in areas known as drug smuggling corridors, where DHS has seized thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine in recent years.” Said in court papers.
The Federal Court of Appeals ruled against Trump, but the opinion had no immediate effect due to the Supreme Court’s 5-year order, as construction continued as legal challenges were met.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, Attorney Dror Ladin, senior staff attorney at ACLU’s National Security Project, said: “We hope to take this case to the Supreme Court and eventually stop usurping the administration’s unconstitutional powers.”
As of October of October, the administration has completed approximately 360 miles of border barriers, with about 1 mile being built where U.S. Previously there were no barriers, according to Customs and Border Protection statistics.
‘Stay in Mexico’
The way the Trump administration has stumbled upon the wall, officials have also credited a “stay in Mexico” policy to help stem the flow of migrants despite a record number of arrests last year.
In court summary, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey W. Wall Lay said the program has been “extremely effective” in reducing stress on the United States’ immigration detention capacity and improving the effective resolution of asylum applications since its implementation.
Challenges – Presented by 11 asylum seekers and ACLUs fleeing extreme violence in Central America – urged the court not to pursue the case and to allow the lower court’s opinion to be upheld. They briefly noted that the resulting coronavirus epidemic is no longer urgent due to the public health system, which has led to the rapid removal of migrants, including asylum seekers arrested at the border.
“As a result of this illegal and devaluation policy, asylum seekers face terrible fears every day. Courts have repeatedly ruled against it, and the Supreme Court also told ACLU’s attorney and chief prosecutor, Judy Rabenowitz, in the lawsuit on Monday.
Steve Vladek, a CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the timing of the court proceedings could mean a change in administration and policy could lead to litigation.
“It’s a particularly interesting time,” Vladek said. “The court should at least wait a few weeks for the asylum case to be filed, which means it won’t be argued before February next year. This time, it would be in a much better position if Trump was not re-elected.”
This story has been updated with additional information.
The report is contributed by CNN’s Arian de Vogue.
.
