Immigration Watch International (2): Court blocks Biden from lifting Title 42 border restrictions on May 23

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Court blocks Biden from lifting Title 42 border restrictions on May 23

A Louisiana federal court issued a temporary restraining order Monday preventing the Biden administration from lifting pandemic restrictions at the southern border.

The restrictions, known as Title 42, allow authorities to expel nearly all migrants from the border in the interest of stopping the spread of COVID-19. The states of Missouri, Arizona and Louisiana brought suit earlier this month in Federal court to keep the restrictions in place.

"Our Office just obtained a temporary restraining order to keep Title 42 in place," Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt tweeted Monday. 'This is a huge victory for border security, but the fight continues on.'

The Centers for Disease Control announced on April 1 that it had determined a "[suspension of] the right to introduce migrants into the United States is no longer necessary," and said the mandated restrictions would be lifted on May 23.

At the time, the CDC said the order would remain in place for the next seven weeks to "implement appropriate COVID-19 mitigation protocols, such as scaling up a program to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to migrants and prepare for resumption of regular migration".

Fox News reported Monday that the restraining order prevents any action before a May 13 hearing scheduled in the case. Neither the CDC nor the Biden administration have proposed lifting the restrictions earlier than May 23.

"Congress would have to take action in order for the date not to be May 23," White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday when asked about the administration's plans to lift the restrictions.

The decision to end Title 42 authority, named for a 1944 public health law, is being legally challenged by 22 states and faces growing division within Biden's Democratic Party.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas border Democrat, said last week that Biden is hurting their party by ending Title 42.

"This is not good for Democrats in November. You know, in talking with some of my Republican colleagues, they're saying 'We can't believe the White House is giving us this narrative. We can't believe that they're hurting Democrat candidates for the November election,'" the congressman told Fox News Digital on Thursday.

"And you know this, you look at the polls. The Republican voters are not happy by what's happening at the border. The Democratic voters are not happy. And if you look at the independent voters, they're not happy about this decision. So who are we trying to please?"

In addition, other Democrats, including Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, Chris Coons of Delaware and Gary Peters of Michigan have come out asking the administration to reconsider rescinding Title 42.

https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/court-blocks-biden-from-lifting-title-42-border-restrictions-on-may-23/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Wednesday, April 27, 2022

Court blocks Biden from lifting Title 42 border restrictions on May 23

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors