Joe Biden Faces Supreme Court Review of His ‘Catch and Release Policy


    It is expected that the Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's catch and release practice on April 26, in the Biden v. Texas lawsuit. The hearing will be held one month prior to the date when Biden and Mayorkas are set to remove the Title 42 barrier on May 23rd, and will allow the border to an unlimited flow of asylum-seeking immigrants.

    Federal law states that any person who is on U.S. soil can apply for asylum. However, the law states: “Mandatory detention: Any alien subject to the procedures under this clause shall be detained pending a final determination of credible fear of persecution and, if found not to have such a fear, removed.”

    “The [federal] statute is very clear that aliens who show up at the border without documentation or a visa are supposed to be detained throughout their entire immigration court proceedings,” said Rob Law, the director of policy and regulatory affairs at the Center for Immigration Studies.

    “Non-U.S. nationals (aliens) apprehended by immigration authorities when attempting to unlawfully enter the United States … must be detained while awaiting removal,” the Congressional Research Service wrote on May 10, 2019.

    However, Mayorkas is not willing to hold immigrants, in spite of the harm to Americans. Mayorkas reduces the effectiveness of the program known as the Migration Protection Protocols program, that effectively detain immigrants within Mexico up to the time their legal cases conclude.

    Instead, he lets around 60,000 migrants each month to the United States under a variety of legal claims, and an additional 40,000 seeking employment cross the border.

    This catch-and-release system allows immigrants to get quickly the jobs they require in order to repay their loans to cartels, coyotes, and banks. Thus, the policy feeds the cartels and their conveyor belts of labor and cash, and lets people from a variety of countries across Africa, South America, and Asia to finance illicit entry to Americans in the form of housing and employment markets. The illegal inflows of money skews the American economy to the benefit of employers, investors, and coastal states.

    Mayorkas is just one of numerous officials who have ignored the detention-until-completion law, according to the CRS report: “For many years, immigration authorities had construed governing statutes and regulations to … [ensure] alien could seek bond and potentially be released from custody during the pendency of those proceedings.”

    The policy of no enforcement, and the hands-off approach was changed by the Attorney General Bill Barr, the CRS report says:

    On April 16, 2019, in [a directive legal entitled Matter of M-S. however attorney general (AG) William Barr reversed this decision, ruling that foreign nationals detained at ports of entry, and then placed into formal proceedings for removal after a credible fear determination are not eligible for bond [and release].

    Barr wrote:

    In the end, the statutory text, the regulations implementing it, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Rodriguez all come to the same conclusions, that all aliens who are transferred from expedited proceedings to full ones following the establishment of a credible fear is not eligible for bail. [release].

    Even advocates for immigration rights admit this fact. According to the American Immigration Council, for instance, from March 17, 2022:

    The United States has broad authority to detain specific categories of migrants, immigrants, and other people seeking protection for their human rights while their cases make it through the legal immigration system.

    The law on detention has been in force since reforms in 1996.

    This was George W. Bush/Republican “Any Willing Worker” [policy] that marked the beginning of simply ignoring the compulsory detention clause. This allowed economic migrants to wander to the inside of the country, supposedly [to] attend their court appearances. As word spread about the way the United States was treating migrants, increasing numbers and more migrants arrived and flooded the asylum system.

    Trump tried to establish a reset that was hard to implement through the MPP (Migrant Protection Protocols) along with other deterrence as well as measures to enforce the law however, then Biden came in and destroyed the entire detention clauses of the [Immigration & Naturalization Act[INA] INA.

    The judges of the lower court on the Biden v. Texas case directed Biden's deputies to either lock up the migrants or hold the migrants within Mexico for a while until asylum cases are resolved. As of now, Mayorkas has sent only some hundred people home to Mexico under the MPP. In February, he released nearly 73,480 people and only sent only 93 of them back into Mexico via the MPP.

    Certain GOP politicians are aware of the government-backed migration of labor that is hidden in the overloaded asylum process.

    “We are telling people ‘If you come to the border, and you claim asylum … You can come in,'” Sen. Bob Portman (R-PA) declared on March 30. He continued:

    In addition, there's an estimated 1.5 million-person backlog handling of asylum claims. This means that if you're allowed into the country, and you are waiting for an immigration judge to look over your case, it will be anywhere between four and six years of waiting until your claim will be taken into consideration. While in the United States, … you're at work as a legal migrant, your children are in school, you're receiving your health insurance, you're in the community.

    It's obvious that many of these folks don't turn up to their asylum court hearing. Some do, others do not. The point is that this system is drawing individuals to cross the borders.

    The federal immigration law is designed to safeguard American rights and to create a fair competition in the economic system, and to be safeguarded from unscrupulous companies, political leaders, officials and others like president George. W. Bush and his “Any Willing Worker” pitch.

    In Eight U.S. Code 1324a, which was passed through Congress 1952, employers are prohibited from hiring foreigners unless foreigners are granted work permits.

    (1) In general, it is illegal for a person , or any other entity to:

    (A) to employ or recruit or to refer for a fee to work to be employed in the United States an alien knowing that the person is an illegal foreign (as as defined by subsection (h)(3)) with regard to the work….

    But the past three years of illegal and legal migration has brought around 45 million consumers, workers, and renters into the U.S. economy. This influx of immigrants has brought an enormous amount of money for CEOs, investment firms, and Wall Street.

    The mass influx of illegal and legal immigrants has resulted in the transfer of roughly 500 billion dollars a year in wages, shifting the burden from American employees to investors according to figures in the report of 2016 on immigration from the National Academies of Science.

    White-collar visa programs have helped cut down on wages for American nurses and tech-related graduates, as well as boosted the value of stocks in Fortune 500 companies by $100 billion, according to immigration advocates. The programs also assisted the C-Suite at several Fortune 500 companies by pushing millions of American professionals from technology-related careers as per data from an analysis of 2021 from the Census Bureau.

    The migration programs also moved investment, wages, and wealth from interior cities and states, for example Detroit as well as West Virginia, — to the migratory-inflated coasts.

    The massive influx of more than 20 million illegal workers has forced many Americans towards poverty. The March 22 report from the Oxfam anti-poverty organisation said “more than 31.9 percent of the US labor force, or 51.9 million workers, currently make less than $15 per hour, and many are stuck at the federal minimum wage, which is less than half of that hourly rate.”

    The damages were sketched out in the Washington Post's March 20 article about Dave Ramsey, in Lincoln Park, Michigan:

    He'd been a model for his father by umpiring with his father in high school, and accompanying him on private investigations as his apprentice. However, if his father's ambitions to be a middle-class man fell apart after 50 years, Dave Jr.'s fell apart at the age of 20. He quit school despite his father's urging, to earn some quick cash by installing cable and was injured while at work and later became addicted to the fentanyl patches prescribed by doctors. He got clean and stayed this way for nine years, while caring for his mother and father. He'd even returned to school in the evening to get his degree; however, the opportunities offered to him didn't offer a union position or the chance to be a part of the active American middle-class. Instead, he slogged through a variety of contracting jobs which offered a reasonable income one week but no pay the next and the family's monthly expenses were way beyond their budget.

    Businesses from the coastal regions are cheering for Title 42 takedown. A statement issued by, a Zuckerberg funded advocacy group representing West Coast investors said:

    “The ultimate goal should be an efficient system for migration that goes further than asylum. This means expanding legal immigration pathways… ending Title 42 is only one tiny part of creating that efficient system of migration,” said the group with its wealthy founders, who earn greater wealth from the stock market as the federal government enslaves more workers, consumers, and renters in this U.S. economy.

    However, D.C. reporters are oblivious to the law and economics, in part because they are pushed by editors to pay attention to the dramatizing journeys of migrants.

    In a phone call with Department of Homeland Security officials on Friday, officials from the agency answered questions from at least six of their preferred reporters. However, none of them were able to question the legality of allowing economic immigrants into the labor market, and the impact it has on Americans. Similarly, CNN's Jake Tapper interviewed Mayorkas on April 1 but did not doubt whether it was legal to implement Mayorkas's border-opening policies.

    A variety of polls reveal that the American people want to be a fan of immigrants and immigration; however, it would like to be able to give priority to the rights of fellow Americans.

    For instance, a March 18-21 survey from 1,050 registered voters carried out by Echelon Insights found that 29 percent Americans completely agreed with the statement that “America should not increase the number of immigrants it lets in, as immigrants could lower wages, take jobs away from Americans, and be a drain on taxpayers.”

    Only 21 percent of respondents believed that “America should increase the number of immigrants it lets in, as immigrants will help address labor market shortages, start businesses, and revitalize declining cities and towns.”

    “The operation of the government's national immigration system is designed to mislead the public and the media regarding the massive expulsion of consumers and workers from poor nations,” Law said.

    The question is “Can you do just enough to deceive the public?” … Removals which are carried out by the administration are merely driven [by] poor optics; for example, the Haitians gathering under the Del Rio bridge, because they cannot escape the negative publicity. They then claim, “Oh, we're not totally open borders, we're using our limited resources to get the worst actors.”

    The government's co-operation with cartels has been concealed in the guise of border enforcement laws, and a veil of legal complexities:

    “They are part of this trade of importing workers and people to America. It will be a mutually beneficial arrangement which sees the cartels benefiting from all the people who pay the costs for transportation, while the Biden administration welcomes these people, aids in the process, and then places them where they'd like to be inside the country. …. This is an extremely corrupt business deal between the cartels and the Biden administration

    However, it is clear that the Supreme Court case is exposing the unpretentious reality of migration beyond the border, added Law “This is a seminal moment about whether or not we are a nation that has the ability to determine who comes into our country.”


    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here