Remain In Mexico Updated and Explained
On August 24, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an Order effectively requiring the reinstatement of the Migrant Protection Protocols implemented by the Trump administration. Ending MPP was one of the Biden Administration’s first acts, and in requiring the reinstatement, the Supreme Court was rejecting the Biden administration’s plan, described below.
How did we get back here?
In January 2019, the Trump administration implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”), which required individuals arriving at the southern border of the United States and seeking asylum (at a port of entry or after crossing the border between ports of entry) to be given notices to appear in immigration court and sent back to Mexico. The MPP are colloquially referred to as “Remain in Mexico” under the Trump administration.
For in-depth analysis of the Migrant Protection Protocols, you can review this paper from the American Immigration Council. As Remain in Mexico was enforced, asylum seekers suffered inhumane living conditions and were subjected to kidnapping, assault, rape, exortion, and murder.
In response to the injustices asylum seekers faced under the MPP, both in United States courtrooms and at the detention camp in Matamoros, Texas Impact created the Courts & Ports program—a 2-day immersion experience designed to build understanding of the many challenges facing migrants and public servants at the Texas-Mexico border. Courts & Ports has allowed people of faith to witness first-hand the legal and law enforcement processes related to immigration, detention, and deportation occurring in South Texas.
More than 500 individuals have participated in Courts & Ports program, including 100 religious leaders from around the State of Texas who participated in an Advocacy Intensive, personally meeting with asylum seekers at the detention camp in Matamoros and bringing the stories of the asylum seekers to their congressional representatives in Washington, D.C.
In March 2020, the United States Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue enforcing Remain in Mexico while the administration appealed a 9th Circuit ruling that the Remain in Mexico policy violated both federal immigration law and international law. Ultimately, oral arguments were scheduled for February 2021 at the earliest. The Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to remove the case from the court’s calendar because it was no longer enforcing the policy. The Supreme Court dismissed the case in June 2021.
In April 2021, the States of Texas and Missouri filed suit against the Biden administration over the suspension of the MPP. On August 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, issued an Order stating the Biden administration had to reinstate the policy by August 21, 2021. The Biden Administration appealed to the 5th Circuit, and it issued an Order that pointed out that the District Court only required to implement the policy “in good faith.” On August 24, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an Order rejecting the Biden administration’s plea for reprieve from the District Court’s Order on August 13, 2021, effectively requiring the reinstatement of MPP as initially implemented by the Trump administration.
While on its face this ruling is devastating, there are reasons that “MPP 2.0” differs significantly from MPP as originally administered. There are a number of ways the Biden administration can “comply” with the ruling without the MPP looking anything like it did under the Trump administration.
First, the Supreme Court’s order does not require the Biden administration to implement Remain in Mexico the way it was implemented under the Trump administration. It does not require building new detention facilities or detaining every asylum seeker, both of which were occurring under the Trump administration. Currently, the Biden administration must implement the MPP “in good faith.” For example, it can continue processing and paroling asylum seekers into the United States through individualized review—something the Trump administration chose not to do. Furthermore, the Biden administration can improve the way Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) staff screen asylum seekers for humanitarian parole. Meanwhile, from the legal side, the Biden Administration can take another bite at the apple and still has numerous ways it can challenge the re-implementation of MPP.
Beyond the legal ramifications and strife between the two political parties that currently dominate American politics, though, it is important for people of faith to understand the bigger picture: Spanning a period of years and multiple administrations led by both major political parties, through both action and inaction, the United States has persisted in treatment of asylum seekers at our southern border that can only be described as inhumane. Many of the state and federal officials responsible for immigration policy decisions lack the experience and place-based knowledge to craft policies that are fully responsive to the complex conditions at the border. They depend on informed, engaged constituents to connect the dots.
Politicians rely on practitioners with actual knowledge and experience in particular areas to fuel policy changes and resource distribution. When it comes to border and immigration policy, Texas who have participated in Courts & Ports are uniquely qualified from both factual and moral standpoints to educate public officials and others in the community. Texans of faith will continue to play a crucial role in bearing witness to how the federal government and the State of Texas continue to mistreat asylum seekers at the South Texas border. Using your voice and authentic interactions with asylum seekers to uplift their stories to publicly elected officials is one of the most effective strategies available to help build humanity and community at our national borders.