Immigration Watch International (2): Abbott celebrates continuation of Title 42 at border, but says long-term solutions are needed

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Abbott celebrates continuation of Title 42 at border, but says long-term solutions are needed

Gov. Greg Abbott again slammed the Biden administration over its handling of immigration policy and enforcement on Monday during a visit to Eagle Pass, in which officials briefed the governor on state-run border security operations.

Abbott’s trip coincided with what would have been the expiration of Title 42, a pandemic-era policy adopted under Trump that allows for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the U.S. border, but a federal judge blocked the Biden administration from ending the program days earlier.

Abbott cautiously celebrated the judge’s ruling in remarks to press, but stressed the need for more long-term solutions to address the surge of migrants border officials are facing.

“One thing that we know for a fact, and that is there are maybe as many as 100,000 migrants who are across the border waiting to cross into the state of Texas,” Abbott said. “And we as a state, we being the local communities that are represented here in this room today, they're all dealing with the enormous challenge of having a tidal wave of people come into their communities.”

Originally implemented during the Trump administration as a health policy, Title 42 allows border authorities to turn away migrants at the border, including those seeking asylum, in order to limit the spread of COVID-19.

Despite its origins as a health policy under the authority of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Title 42 has become the center of a fierce debate over immigration policy.

More:Texas sues Biden administration over plans to end Trump-era Title 42 immigration policy

Republican-led states, including Texas, sued to stop Title 42 from ending on May 23rd as scheduled, arguing that state and federal authorities are not prepared to handle the massive influx of migrants anticipated upon the policy’s expiration.

Recent numbers released by the federal government showed that in April authorities came across more than 230,000 migrants attempting to enter the U.S. without authorization, with more than half of those encounters happening in Texas.

Abbott has made border security one of his top priorities and has heavily campaigned on it, touting his initiative to address the issue, known as Operation Lone Star.

Abbott launched Operation Lone Star in March 2021, deploying thousands of Texas National Guard troops and Texas Department of Public Safety troopers to the border in order to tackle a sharp increase in illegal immigration, and drug and human trafficking.

However the operation has since faced significant criticism after reports emerged that troops were experiencing delays in pay, insufficient equipment, plummeting morale, and a streak of suicides among service members deployed as part of the program.

Texas sues Biden administration over new border policies
Earlier Monday, state Attorney General Ken Paxton announced that he had filed a second lawsuit in hopes of blocking the Biden administration from changing the way asylum requests are handled at the border with Mexico.

The new procedure, set to take effect May 31, is intended to reduce yearslong immigration backlogs by allowing asylum officers to rule on immigrant requests for permission to legally enter the United States to escape persecution, or fear of future danger, in their home countries.

The goal, federal officials said, is to make the decision within months to grant asylum to those who deserve it or promptly remove those who do not, but Paxton argued that the new policy would encourage illegal immigration by making it easier for people to enter the country under false pretenses.

The new rule also violates federal law, which requires asylum decisions to be made by immigration judges, not asylum officers, Paxton said.

"The Biden administration has made it clear that they do not want to abide by the Constitution or the rules and regulations set by Congress, especially regarding the Texas border," he said in a statement. "This entire rule is just a way for this administration to accomplish their real goal: a mass influx of illegal aliens into the United States."

Monday's lawsuit joiins a similar challenge Paxton filed last month in Amarillo federal court, putting the matter before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/05/24/title-42-continuation-applauded-by-texas-gov-greg-abbott/9896530002/

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

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)

Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Abbott celebrates continuation of Title 42 at border, but says long-term solutions are needed

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors