Mediaboss Marketing

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered Texas to allow federal border agents access to the states border with Mexico, where Texas officials have deployed miles of concertina wire.

The order did not explain justices decisions. For now, it effectively upholds longstanding court rulings that the Constitution gives the federal government sole responsibility for border security.

In October of last year, Texas sued the federal government after Border Patrol agents cut some of the wire strung along the Rio Grande, arguing the Department of Homeland Security destroyed the states property and interfered in Texas border security efforts.

The 5-4 order from the Supreme Court vacated a previous injunction from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that prevented Border Patrol agents from cutting the concertina wire.

In recent weeks, Shelby Park in Eagle Pass has become the center of a standoff between Texas and the federal government over immigration enforcement. Most recently, Gov. Greg Abbott has ramped up border enforcement around the 47-acre park by surrounding the perimeter by the razor wire and limiting access to the city park.

The Biden Administration has repeatedly cut wire that Texas installed to stop illegal crossings, opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants. The absence of razor wire and other deterrence strategies encourages migrants to make unsafe and illegal crossings between ports of entry, while making the job of Texas National Guard soldiers and DPS troopers more dangerous and difficult, Andrew Mahaleris, a spokesperson for Abbott, said in a statement. This case is ongoing, and Governor Abbott will continue fighting to defend Texas' property and its constitutional authority to secure the border.

In a statement Tuesday, the White House celebrated the Supreme Court's order that enabled federal authorities to address urgent humanitarian situations and enforce our laws.

Texas political stunts, like placing razor wire near the border, simply make it harder and more dangerous for frontline personnel to do their jobs. Ultimately, we need adequate resources and policy changes to address our broken immigration system, the statement said. That is why on his first day in office President Biden presented Congress with a comprehensive immigration reform plan and that is why he is working to find a bipartisan agreement with Congress that includes additional resources and meaningful policy reforms.

Biden's U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 has faced an uphill battle since he introduced it three years ago. Since then, Congress has yet to come to bipartisan agreement on how to resolve the issue as Republicans, and even some Democrats, continue to condemn the president's handling of the border.

Since 2021, Abbotts Operation Lone Star initiative has created tension between the state and federal government. Under the operation, Abbott has deployed state troopers across the 1,200 mile Texas-Mexico border; ordered state police to arrest migrants who are suspected of trespassing; spent $11 million to install 70,000 rolls of concertina wire along the Rio Grande; and spent $1.5 billion on about a dozen miles of border walls.

As migrants have attempted to get through the wire, Border Patrol has cut through parts of the barrier to assist injured people. Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against DHS, claiming federal agents had illegally destroyed state property.

A U.S. district court judge based in Del Rio sided with the federal government, ruling that Border Patrol agents didnt violate any laws by cutting the wire. Paxtons office appealed, and a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit paused the ruling until the case went through the appeals process.

On Jan. 12, National Guard members blocked federal border agents from accessing the Rio Grande after three migrants drowned while crossing the river and two others were still struggling in the water, according to a court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The state denied the federal agencys version of events, arguing that Mexican officials had the situation under control in subsequent court filings.

On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the 5th Circuits order after the Biden administration sent a cease and desist letter to Paxton for blocking federal access to the border. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the courts three liberal justices in issuing the order.

The Supreme Courts temporary order allows Biden to continue his illegal effort to aid the foreign invasion of America, Paxton said in a statement. The destruction of Texas border barriers will not help enforce the law or keep American citizens safe. This fight is not over, and I look forward to defending our states sovereignty.

Immigration rights groups have criticized Texas officials' use of the term invasion for potentially inciting violence against Hispanic people.

In a separate lawsuit, President Joe Biden sued Texas over the deployment of floating barriers on the Rio Grande, also in Eagle Pass. In December, the 5th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, ordered Texas to remove the barrier. Texas has asked the appeals court to reconsider the case.

Read this article:
U.S. Supreme Court says Texas can't block federal agents from the border - The Texas Tribune

House Republicans want a border deal but not the one on offer.

Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday "voiced skepticism" about an emerging Senate proposal to link Ukraine aid to tougher immigration enforcement, The Hill reported. "I don't think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform," he told a press conference, "because we know how complicated that is." His comments came amid warnings that a looming budget deadline could actually make the border crisis worse.

The GOP has been agitating about immigration for years, so why not take the opportunity for progress on the issue? One possibility: It's not good for Donald Trump. The Messenger reported that Trump has warned Johnson not to make a deal. "He and I have been talking about this pretty frequently," Johnson acknowledged. That brought a backlash from Democrats. "They're hoping for chaos at the border and trying to stop us from preventing it," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Trump, of course, is gearing up to take on President Joe Biden in November: An immigration deal could rob him of his signature issue against the incumbent. Indeed, USA Today reported that some House Republicans don't want to sign onto a bipartisan deal "because it would help Biden's reelection prospects." And Johnson reportedly told his fellow Republicans that an immigration bill "must wait until former President Donald Trump or another Republican regains the presidency."

"The status quo favors Republicans," Rich Lowry argued at The New York Post. It's Biden not the GOP that needs to take drastic action at the border, where the crisis has become so palpable that "even the media have started to notice." That gives Republicans the upper hand when arguing for the strictest border enforcement possible. There's "growing recognition that the chaos at the border is hurting Biden, and he needs to do something about it."

House Republicans should "listen to the American people on the border crisis and negotiate," The Chicago Tribune editorialized. Biden and "savvy Senate Democrats" have finally come to the table on immigration, giving "real hope that a serious, comprehensive bill could emerge." So it's not great that House Republicans "already are declaring the Senate product dead on arrival." If the border crisis really is a crisis, the folks in charge should respond with action instead of obstruction. To do otherwise in hopes of helping Trump "is strikingly cynical, even for this day and age."

But Republicans aren't the only ones wary of a bipartisan bill. "This border deal is a political trap for Democrats," Andrea R. Flores, a former immigration adviser to the Biden administration, warned in The New York Times. It's true that "voters strongly disapprove of President Biden's handling of the border." The status quo is "unsustainable." But any border deal that relies mostly on tougher border enforcement while failing to expand legal pathways to immigration will only make the crisis worse. "There is too much at stake for Democrats to accept the terms of this Senate proposal."

There's a problem with the House Republican approach. "To those who think that if President Trump wins, which I hope he does, that we can get a better deal you won't," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Wednesday. Why? Because any immigration bill must receive 60 votes to pass the Senate. Even if Republicans pick up a Senate majority in November, it's unlikely they'll meet that threshold. Which means that any deal will involve compromise from both sides. There's no time like the present, Graham said: "This is a historic moment to reform the border."

But it's not clear how much tougher border enforcement would alleviate border pressures, Eduardo Porter argued at The Washington Post. Border Patrol has increased its staffing "fivefold" since the early 1990s, while the number of undocumented migrants living here has still tripled. Immigrants are driven to the U.S. by "hunger, climate change and a desire for opportunity." That won't change until their circumstances do. "Hardening the border will not keep them out."

See the article here:
Immigration reform strikes out with House Republicans - The Week

To the Editor:

In How to Fix Americas Immigration Crisis (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 14), Steven Rattner and Maureen White argue: We need to come to a national consensus on how many immigrants we want to accept and the bases for determining who is chosen. That includes balancing the two principal objectives of immigration policy: to meet our legal and moral humanitarian obligations to persecuted individuals and to bolster our work force.

These two objectives need not be at odds. Pathways for displaced people who have skills needed by U.S. employers can benefit displaced people, employers and the communities that welcome new neighbors. The United States could adopt a program, modeled on Canadas Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot, to address specific needs in states, cities and industries, while offering lasting refuge to displaced people.

In fact, the Biden administration could adopt many changes to facilitate displaced peoples access to employment opportunities without legislation.

But a humanitarian employment program should be additional to, and must not replace, systems of asylum and resettlement. Human rights are not a consideration to be balanced against economic considerations.

Betsy Fisher Minneapolis The writer is the U.S. director at Talent Beyond Boundaries.

To the Editor:

Steven Rattner and Maureen White acknowledge that reducing flows of migrants to our border requires improving conditions in sending countries. They lament reductions in the already paltry U.S. foreign aid budget.

Yet they neglect to mention U.S. punitive sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba two significant sources of migrants that exacerbated economic meltdowns and led people to flee. Nicaragua too is subject to less extensive but still dire U.S. sanctions.

These U.S. measures not only undermine material well-being and hope, but also provide cover to authoritarian heads of state, who blame Washington rather than themselves for their countries dismal situations.

Marc Edelman Callicoon, N.Y.

To the Editor:

In this shortsighted essay, the authors propose that we should require asylum seekers to apply in Mexico or other countries, including their home countries. As an immigration attorney at the Capital Area Immigrants Rights Coalition, I can tell you that this idea would be laughable if it were not so frighteningly close to becoming the law.

How would this work? Would the Afghans fleeing the Taliban simply line up at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul? (Spoiler alert: There isnt one.) Also, the Mexican asylum system is no less overwhelmed than our own, having received a record number of applications in 2023.

Likewise, it makes no sense to punish asylum seekers who enter the U.S. between ports of entry. Waiting in Mexico for a border appointment has been a logistical nightmare and has exposed asylum seekers to extreme violence from criminal organizations. We should not make it more dangerous for them for the sake of maintaining bureaucratic niceties.

We need increased funding for the immigration system, and we should widen other immigration avenues, such as work visas. But our leaders should also focus on the root causes that drive people from their homes a lack of security, coupled with an underdeveloped economy (often saddled by international debt and/or draconian sanctions) and try to find long-term solutions that will enable us to welcome asylum seekers with dignity.

F. Evan Benz Washington

To the Editor:

As a social democrat and registered Democrat, I agree with Steven Rattner and Maureen White. I have in-laws who migrated from El Salvador through legal immigration. It took 15 years from start to finish. The paperwork, legal fees and bureaucracy are onerous. If someone qualifies under our laws, it should take not more than a year to process.

I also think the border needs to be secured, not with a physical wall, but by using technology that is better suited to a large expanse. Closed-circuit television, drones, infrared cameras and certainly more Customs and Border Protection officers are needed to apprehend, process and deport illegal immigrants.

There should be a penalty for anyone, regardless of asylum eligibility, who enters the country illegally, which would be a start in deterring people from attempting this. There is no need to deport people back to their country of origin, just back across the border over which they crossed, be it Canada or Mexico.

There should be a limit on economic refugees admitted per year, and it should not be based on country of origin, but on need. For this, we need to adequately staff our immigration and court systems. I agree with the authors that one part of the reform needs to be adequate funding of these agencies.

Not all progressives are of the same mind. I do see a deep need for immigration reform, and it includes ideas from serious Republicans, independents and Democrats alike.

Jeff Jumisko Los Angeles

To the Editor:

Part of fixing the immigration crisis is to more quickly determine who requires asylum. A Times article last year highlighted the shortage of judges, resulting in a backlog of two million immigration cases, which take an average of four years to resolve.

I believe that the judicial system should follow the example of other professions, such as medicine, dentistry and law, where health care associates, dental assistants and paralegals are able to make independent decisions.

Similarly, not all legal situations should require a judge. The judicial system could hire and train paralegals and assistants by the tens of thousands who would be focused on immigration asylum cases.

They would be given authority to quickly settle straightforward cases and refer indeterminate situations to judges, just as the health care associates, dental assistants and paralegals now send difficult situations to the professional in charge.

Murray H. Seltzer Boca Raton, Fla. The writer is a retired surgeon.

To the Editor:

Re Johnson Digs In Against a Deal on Immigration (front page, Jan. 18):

House Republicans intransigence on immigration is easy to understand. It has long been an effective campaign issue with their MAGA base.

Holding military aid for Ukraine hostage to immigration reform is harder to explain. Aside from the unspeakable horror and criminality of Russias attacks on its smaller neighbor, Vladimir Putins aggression directly threatens U.S. NATO allies, and thus the United States itself.

The only credible explanation for withholding aid to Ukraine is Donald Trumps affection for Mr. Putin, whom he has called smart and a tough guy with whom he got along great. And he called Mr. Putins invasion of Ukraine genius.

If House Republicans really care about national security, theyll stand up to Mr. Trump and find another way to solve the immigration problem.

Stephen Dycus New York

To the Editor:

In Tougher Than the Rest (column, Jan. 14), David Brooks writes of Nikki Haley: Mobilized by sadness and anger, she helped persuade more than two-thirds of both houses of the legislature to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol grounds, which was an astounding act of political craftsmanship and moral fortitude that even her detractors admire.

The only thing astounding about taking down the flag of a deadly treasonous insurgency is that it took 150 years and a murderous, racist hate crime to finally get it removed. If Governor Haley had been truly mobilized by sadness and anger, a more meaningful demonstration of political craftsmanship and moral fortitude would have been to enact sweeping gun safety legislation. Thats toughness.

Stephen Thiroux Ashland, Ore.

To the Editor:

Jessica Grose nailed it again in Botox Destroyed What I Liked About My Face (Opinion, Jan. 13). I always look forward to her essays, and this one spoke to me, a late 40s lady trying to stay youthful mentally and physically.

I, too, never thought I would try Botox, but decided to give it a shot. I initially loved my incredibly smooth forehead and the decreased number of lines around my eyes.

But Ive come to realize that wrinkles are badges of honor and that I should embrace the souvenirs of thousands of smiles and surprises and even angst Ive experienced throughout a full life so far.

Beth Porter Buceras, Mexico

Read more from the original source:
Opinion | Making Changes to U.S. Immigration Policy - The New York Times

Most of the ideas from Gov. Gretchen Whitmers population growth council report are either bad, ineffective or have little to do with population growth. But give credit where it is due: The council did have some good ideas on labor regulation laws.

The council recommended making it easier for people to come to Michigan and more likely to want to move here. It called for lawmakers to conduct a full review of professional licensing requirements to identify which can be maintained, improved, updated or eliminated. Lawmakers, the report said, should remove unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to workforce entry without sacrificing workplace/consumer safety or the quality of work provided to Michiganders.

Michigans licensing process is arbitrary and often nonsensical. It is hard to justify, say, barbers needing three times the training hours that police officers need. The states 180-plus licenses should be reviewed and, at the very least, the state should immediately recognize the certification and experience of people in other states and let them work in Michigan.

The federal immigration system is also convoluted. Attracting more immigrants to Michigan is a worthy goal. The report calls for Michigan policymakers to work with federal officials to simplify the route by which H-1B visa holders and international students can achieve citizenship and transition to permanent Michigan residency.

The governor and state lawmakers should implement some parts of the population commissions recommendations. Making it easier for people to move and work in our state is the lowest fruit and represents the most obvious reforms.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.

View post:
Growing Michigan Together's report highlights licensing and immigration reform - Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and Colorados Democratic Congressional delegation called on Congress Thursday to take urgent action to support Colorado communities struggling under the weight of a growing humanitarian crisis caused by surges of immigrants, many fleeing brutal regimes and crossing the U.S. border illegally.

As of Thursday morning, Denver has welcomed an unprecedented 37,604 immigrants. More than 4,300 are being temporarily fed and sheltered by city taxpayers. The expense has been tremendous: $38 million, and counting.

Denver, like many cities in America, is a vibrant, thriving city full of generous folks who want to see everyone succeed, Johnston said. We are also a city right now that is facing a humanitarian crisis and a fiscal crisis unlike anything weve seen in the last 25 years.

And that is the result of what we know is the ongoing influx of migrant arrivals who are seeking asylum in America and the system that is not adequately helping them to succeed.

Early in the crisis, city leaders decided Denver would pay to house or transport immigrants to the city of their choice.

Despite state and federal grants totaling more than $14 million, Denver taxpayers are shouldering the bulk of the costs.

Earlier this month, Johnston warned that the city had reached a breaking point and if left unabated the cost to taxpayers could reach up to $180 million this year. He instructed department heads to find 10% to 15% in cuts.

Traditionally, immigration has been an issue relegated to gateway cities such as Chicago and New York City or states adjacent to the U.S. border with Mexico.

Not anymore.

Denver is more than 600 miles from El Paso, Texas, the closest U.S. border with Mexico.

Officials have speculated immigrants are drawn to Denver because of its relative proximity to the Mexico border while others believe the appeal is its status as a sanctuary city.

Generally speaking, a sanctuary city is a designation for municipalities and counties that establish policies discouraging local law enforcement from reporting an individuals immigration status to federal authorities.

But its not just Denver.

Carbondale and Aurora have also provided assistance to newly arriving immigrants.

Editor's note: This is a developing story.

Follow this link:
Johnston, Bennet and Hickenlooper urge immigration reform | Colorado In DC - coloradopolitics.com