Immigration Law: The Biden v. Texas Case

The U.S. is one of the most civilized countries that recognize the rights of immigrants. The recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S., was a hallmark for immigration laws in the U.S. While the case was more political in nature, it proved the U.S. obedience to human rights regardless of the immigrants’ country of origin. The Donald Trump administration formulated the “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers. The policy, titled Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), required Mexican asylum seekers in the U.S. to remain in their country while their cases were reviewed (Justia Law, 2022). The policy drew conflicting political positions, with Republicans in support of it and Democrats against it.

After the election of President Joe Biden into the office of the president of the U.S., MPP was revoked. The 2018 election’s results were followed by a series of political decisions that affected protocols made by the previous regime (Greenberg & Page, 2018). Consequently, the administration allowed asylum seekers to stay in the U.S. while the immigration offices reviewed their requests. A case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the legality of revoking the MPP by the Biden administration. The case before the Supreme Court was administrative and human rights in nature. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case on February 18, 2022. On June 30, 2022, it was held that the federal government had the authority to revoke MPP (Kalhan, 2022). The court’s decision was based on proper and constitutional administrative actions taken by the Biden administration in rescinding MPP. Additionally, the court stated that the government’s action was not inconsistent with section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on the case of Biden v. Texas because of three reasons. Firstly, it is crucial for a country that respects human rights to prioritize the safety of asylum seekers. Individuals running away from their home countries because of war or other difficulties should be accommodated where they feel safe. Secondly, I believe that an administrative action should be, fair, reasonable, and within the precincts of the law. The government followed all the set procedures to rescind MPP. Finally, human rights are universal and entitled to anyone regardless of their situation. Therefore, rescinding MPP was in support of human rights which are universal.

References

Greenberg, E.S. and Page, B.I. (2018). The Struggle for Democracy, 2018 Elections and Updates Edition- Revel Combo Access Card. Pearson.

Justia Law (2022). Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. Web.

Kalhan, A. (2022). Judicial illiberalism: How captured courts are entrenching Trump-era immigration Policies. Bender’s Immigration Bulletin, 27 (22), 1971-79. Web.