The US Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case brought by border state Texas challenging the federal government’s right to decide which undocumented migrants should be targeted for deportation.
Defending the Biden’s administration’s policy, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the federal government has to prioritize its efforts because it does not have the resources to pursue the 11 million undocumented “noncitizens” in the country.
“This is not about reducing enforcement of the immigration laws, it’s about prioritizing limited resources to say go after Person A instead of Person B,” Prelogar said.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
After more than two hours of arguments, the nine justices on the conservative-majority court did not appear to fall clearly on one side or the other of the case, which also raises thorny questions of the legality of state challenges to federal policies.
“It means that states can challenge the federal government on any policy with which they disagree,” Prelogar said. “Federal courts should not be transformed into open forums for each and every policy dispute between the states and the national government.”
Texas filed suit after the Department of Homeland Security, in a September 2021 memo, instructed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to concentrate expulsion efforts on persons who “pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security.”
“We do not have the resources to apprehend and seek the removal of every one of these noncitizens,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said. “Therefore, we need to exercise our discretion and determine whom to prioritize for immigration enforcement action.”
Texas solicitor general Judd Stone said prioritizing expulsion of undocumented migrants to certain categories of persons would impose costs on the state, which shares a border with Mexico and is an entry point for hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
“Texas suffers injuries, regardless of what it does, whether it detains, releases or paroles individuals because we have not only law enforcement costs, but social services costs and very serious threats of recidivism,” Stone said.
‘Zenith of federal power’
Elena Kagan, one of the three liberal justices on the court, appeared skeptical about the costs argument and the potential danger of limiting federal authority.
“Immigration policy is supposed to be the zenith of federal power,” Kagan said. “And instead, we’re creating a system where a combination of states and courts can bring immigration policy to a dead halt.
“We’re going to be in a situation where every administration is confronted by suits by states that can, you know, bring a policy to a dead halt, to a dead stop, by just showing a dollars worth of costs,” Kagan said.
Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked the Texas solicitor general what would happen if the court rules in favor of Texas, whose Republican governor has been sending busloads of immigrants to Democratic-ruled states.
Advertisement
20240410_mh_renta_728x90
20240426_bcr_censo_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230816_dgs_728x90
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
CEL
CEL
SSF
SSF
SSF
“If you prevail here, what will happen?” Kavanaugh said. “That’s a concern because I’m not sure much will change because they don’t have the resources to change.”
The Biden administration’s move to target individuals considered a threat to national security or public safety for deportation represented a shift from the policy of the administration of former president Donald Trump, which called for the expulsion of “all removable aliens.”
The Biden policy was immediately challenged by several Republican-led states as being too narrow and was blocked by a court in Texas.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June.
The new truce plan in Gaza includes “many demands” from Hamas, according to an Egyptian source
The talks held between delegations from Egypt and Israel in Tel Aviv for a truce in Gaza were “largely positive and successful” and included “many of the demands” of the Islamist movement Hamas, an Egyptian security source familiar with the negotiations and another from Hamas reported to EFE on Sunday.
A delegation from Hamas, headed by the member of the political bureau Khalil al-The Hague, is expected to arrive tomorrow in Cairo, mediator in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group, to deliver its response to the mediators, according to the Egyptian source, which asked not to be identified by the sensitivity of this issue.
This new proposal, on whose content it did not provide details, “overcomes the obstacles that hinder” the declaration of a truce, a ceasefire, the exchange of prisoners and hostages, as well as the entry of aid into the Gaza Strip.
The possible announcement of a truce “will contribute to the approval of a first phase and to the efforts of the entire international community to consolidate this ceasefire and seek to move to a permanent truce instead of a temporary one,” according to the informant.
On the other hand, a source of the Palestinian Islamist movement, which also asked for anonymity, confirmed to EFE that tomorrow a delegation from Hamas will arrive in the Egyptian capital to present its response to the new Israeli proposal.
The informant added that the proposal includes “reducing the minimum number of kidnapped that Hamas will commit to freeing and eliminating divisions in sections of the Gaza Strip.”
Last Friday, an Egyptian mediating delegation traveled to Tel Aviv to discuss this truce with Israel, while the Jewish State has warned that it will not allow the Palestinian group to delay and has once again threatened to invade Rafah, at the southern end of the strip and where more than a million refugees are overcrowded.
Hamas warns the United Kingdom that if it sends soldiers to Gaza they will be a “legitimate” military target
The Palestinian Islamist group Hamas warned the United Kingdom on Sunday that if it deploys military personnel in the Gaza Strip, after information that they could help in the distribution of humanitarian aid, they will be “legitimate targets” of its armed wing.
“We alert Britain, or any other country, against the deployment of forces on land or on the coast of the Gaza Strip and affirm that they will be legitimate targets for our people and their resistance,” Hamas said in a statement.
The armed group charged against any initiative in the Palestinian enclave that does not have its approval.
The Islamist group responded to the information released on Saturday by the British network BBC, according to which the British Armed Forces could deploy troops to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground arriving in Gaza through the new floating dock that is being built by Israel and the United States.
The public broadcaster indicated that the United Kingdom could be the intermediary to which the United States referred when it said that it would not be the American soldiers, but others, who would distribute the food packages sent by ship from Cyprus and then transferred to Gaza.
Yesterday, the Israeli Army assured at a press conference with international media that international organizations would be in charge of the distribution of humanitarian aid, but did not indicate which ones would have agreed to collaborate.
Although the British Government has not confirmed the news, the BBC affirms, according to anonymous sources, that the Ministry of Defense is considering getting involved with ‘wet boots’ on the ground.
The possible role of the British forces would involve driving the trucks with the help from the landing boats on the floating runway, hundreds of meters long, and delivering it to a safe distribution area on dry land, the station explained.
The London Ministry of Defense reported on Friday, in turn, that the British Navy auxiliary ship RFA Cardigan Bay set sail from Cyprus to provide support for the construction of the temporary dock, which is led by the United States.
This ship will provide accommodation for hundreds of American sailors and soldiers, about whom Washington has made it clear that they will not set foot in Gaza territory.
Nancy Pelosi says that Netanyahu “could not have made things worse” in Gaza
Former President of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said that the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, “could not have made things worse” in the conflict in Gaza, in an interview broadcast this Sunday by the BBC.
Pelosi, who on Thursday participated in an event at the English university of Oxford, told the ‘Laura Kuenssberg Program’ that Netanyahu “was never a peace agent” and admitted that she “is not a great fan of his.”
The congresswoman said that what is happening in the Strip “challenges the conscience of the world” and maintained that the impact of famine on children “is almost unforgivable”, while calling the Hamas attack on Israeli territory on October 7 “barbaric”.
“Israel has the right to defend itself, but the way it is doing it is a challenge because Netanyahu has never been a peace agent,” he said.
“I’m not a great admirer of yours; I couldn’t have done things worse than those tens of thousands, or whatever number it is, of dead people, malnourished children and the uncertainty that exists… and that’s what people are talking about,” he said.
Asked if she understood why young people in the United States used controversial tactics when protesting against the conflict, Pelosi opined that “when they go beyond the campuses and block the Golden Gate Bridge, or something else, for a long time, and people can’t go to the doctor or the hospital or anything urgent in their lives, they don’t get support.”
But he added: “How can demonstrations on (university) campuses be criticized? That’s a way of life in the United States.”
On Thursday, the British police evicted two pro-Palestinian protesters who protested during their speech on populism to students from the University of Oxford, while abroad another group criticized her for her defense of Israel and her position on the movement to support Palestine.
