USA
This article was added by the user . TheWorldNews is not responsible for the content of the platform.

Arito states that Biden's refusal to enforce the "stay in Mexico" policy violates the explicit terms of the law.

NEWYou can now listen to FoxNews articles.

On Thursday, Judge Samuel Arito refused to enforce the "Stay in Mexico" policy, and the Byden administration issued a federal law requiring immigrants to be detained or transferred without being released. He said he was clearly ignoring it.

Alito is the Supreme Court'scase Biden v. In Texas, I commented withdissenting opinion. In this case, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Biden administration. Judge John Roberts, with the addition of Judge Brett Kabanau and three liberal members of the court, paved the way for President Byden to finally end "staying in Mexico" after more than a year of attempt. .. 

"In 2021, border patrols reported encounters with more than 1.7 million aliens along the Mexican border," Arito said with the addition of Judges Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. I wrote in.

Justice Samuel Alito said in a dissent Thursday that the Biden administration shouldn't be able to simply get rid of the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

Judge Samuel Arito disputed On Thursday, the Byden administration should not be able to simply get rid of the "stay in Mexico" policy. (Michael Katerina / South Bend Tribune via AP)

The best court gets Byden's victory and "to Mexico Allows to put an end to the "Stay" policy

"If one of these aliens seems unacceptable, the government simply releases the aliens in this country and You can expect an alien to attend his or her hearing. The qualifications that remain will be determined. Congress has provided a clear answer to that question, and the answer is no. " Continued. "By law, aliens must be detained for [removal] procedures if there is no doubt that they are not explicitly admitted.

But the governmentcrosses the border every yeara big wave of immigrants. Federal law provides a remedy for this problem, Arito says. According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the government can "return foreigners to their territory until the [removal] procedure is complete" or "for urgent humanitarian reasons or for significant public interest." , Foreigners can only be patroled on a case-by-case basis. " ..

The government and the majority use the word "may" in the law, so theByden administrationcan or cannot exclude immigrants at its discretion. Insisted. However, Arito argued that the structure of INA, written by Congress, "provided executives with two and only two detention alternatives."

A group of migrants is led out of the brush and to a main road near Hidalgo, Texas, by Texas National Guard. 

A group of immigrants is derived from the brush, Texas By the National Guard, to the main road near Hidalgo, Texas.  (Tyler Olson / Fox News)

Justice Clarence Thomas is George, despite the anger of his students. Not fired from Washington University

"The government must do one of the following, on a case-by-case basis," he said. "These options work in hydraulic relations. If the government is unable to comply with statutory obligations and detain unauthorized aliens until further proceedings are taken, other to comply with detention. You have to rely on one or both of the two options. As much as possible requirements. "

Instead, Arito said that the Byden administration abandoned the legal options and said," To this country {He said that if countless numbers of aliensappeared, he decided to release them from being very likely to be taken away.

"This practice is a law. The court has a different view, although it violates the clear terms of. "He added. 

President Biden's administration scored a win at the Supreme Court Thursday when it cleared the way for him to remove the "Remain in Mexico" policy.

President Byden at the Supreme Court on Thursday The administration won the victory, and the policy of "Mexico".(AP Photo / Bernat Armangue)

How MITCHMCCONNELL plays "long game" OF ABORTION LANDMARK ROE

In the majority of opinions, Roberts strongly opposed. Arito said he was inferring a law that Congress had never actually written. 

"The problem is, don't say anything like that in the legislation. The legislation says it may." "Maybe;" not only suggests discretion, but "clearly implies it," Roberts wrote. In order to cure the default of the government's detention obligation, it would not have been possible to convey its intention through implicit reasoning that contradicts clear and clear terms. '"

Click here to get the Fox News app

Weiden vs. Texas is the Supreme Court It was a final decision The court released on Thursday, the final day of his term. This is the final case of Judge Stephen Breyer's career. He told President Byden on Wednesday at 12:00 pm on Thursday,I told Judge Ketangi Brown Jackson that I would retire. At the same time,was pledged.