A U.S. court is hearing a challenge to the Biden administration’s plan to end Section 42 restrictions on the U.S.-Mexico border this month.
A group of 21 U.S. states argues that the Biden administration’s plan Lifting controversial border restrictions The move to bar most asylum seekers from seeking protection at the U.S.-Mexico border was made without adequate consideration of its implications.
Attorney Drew Ensign, representing states involved in the legal challenge, told U.S. District Judge Robert Somer Hayes on Friday that their lawsuit “has nothing to do with the policy wisdom behind the May 23 announcement to terminate the policy.”
Instead, Ensign argues that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) failed to follow proper administrative procedures to require public notification and collection of comments on decisions to end restrictions imposed under the so-called restrictions. Title 42.
More than 1.8 million Section 42 deportation orders have been executed since March 2020, when the policy was first invoked during former President Donald Trump’s administration when the country went into lockdown due to COVID-19 state.
rights groups said However, the move was largely aimed at preventing asylum at the border.
Rights groups say Section 42 allows U.S. authorities to quickly deport most asylum seekers who arrive at the border without giving them a chance to apply for protection in the country Violation of U.S. and International Law.
The lawsuit was filed after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Announce On April 1, the restrictions will be lifted by May 23, after the CDC said it was no longer necessary.
Arizona, Louisiana and Missouri The lawsuit was swiftly filed, and 18 other states later joined Friday’s legal challenge. Texas independently sued.
The states allege that the resulting increase in border crossings and their possible impact have not been properly considered, including pressure on state health care systems and a diversion of border enforcement resources from drug control to control of illegal crossings.
The Justice Department’s Jean Lin argued Friday that the CDC has the power to lift emergency health restrictions it believes are no longer necessary. She said the CDC’s order was a matter of health policy, not immigration policy.
“There is no basis for Title 42 to be used as a safety valve,” Lim told Summerhays.
Several immigrant advocacy groups have asked the Summerhays to allow at least a planned removal of Article 42 in California and New Mexico, the two border states that did not challenge the government’s decision.
But the effort to end the policy comes months before the crucial U.S. midterm elections in November and appears to have inspired some republicans Who wants to put immigration on the agenda before voting.
“Ending refugee protections for those fleeing violence and human rights abuses is a betrayal of the so-called Democratic Party’s values and our national identity,” Frank Sharry, executive director of Voice of America, an advocacy group for immigration reform, said in a Wednesday statement. said in the statement.
“It does nothing to stop Republican attacks and lies at the border, nor does it help modernize our immigration system to serve our interests and reflect our values,” Shari said in a statement.
In March, US authorities stopped more than 221,000 asylum seekers at the Mexican border, the highest level in 22 years. Many of them are repeat traversers.
The powers of Title 42 are applied unevenly across countries. Mexico has agreed to bring back migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, but has largely refused to bring back migrants from other countries.