• There were worries that when the policy would be lifted.
• The number of migrants at the border would increase.
• The government has the authority to automatically remove illegal immigrants.

A contentious Trump-era policy that prevented thousands of individuals from crossing the US-Mexico border has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

The government has the authority to automatically remove illegal immigrants who attempt to enter under Title 42.

There were worries that when the policy would be lifted, the number of migrants at the border would increase.

The Biden administration declared that while it would abide by the decision, immigration policy needed to be changed.

It released a statement saying, “We are moving forward with our plans to administer the border in a secure, orderly, and humane manner when Title 42 inevitably lifts and will continue increasing legal channels for immigrants.”

The removal of Title 42, according to Republican Louisiana senator Bill Cassidy, “would have made our border situation worse, and the White House seems eager to let that happen.”

He wrote on Twitter, “Glad to see the Supreme Court step in to preserve it, but we need a permanent answer.”

In the Mexican border city of Tijuana, Miguel Colmenares, a Venezuelan immigrant, said: “It crushes my heart that we have to remain waiting.”

The 27-year-old said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do, I have no money, and my family is waiting for me.”

The Title 42 policy, which has been used nearly 2.5 million times since March 2020, was initially scheduled to expire on December 21 but Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts halted it two days prior to that date.

The emergency appeal by some Republican-run states requesting the policy’s continuation led to the court’s ruling.

Tuesday saw a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court to continue the temporary stay that Justice Roberts had imposed while the issue was being heard.

The nine members of the Supreme Court will also hear oral arguments over whether or not the states can speak out in favour of the programme.

The most likely time for disputes to occur is in February or March of 2023. By the end of June, a choice must be made.

The verdict will come as a shock to immigration activists who had filed a lawsuit to end Title 42, claiming that doing so was against international commitments to provide asylum.

However, supporters of Title 42 and representatives from numerous border communities contended that abandoning the programme would result in an increase in border crossings, placing a burden on available services.

The government acknowledged that the repeal of Title 42 orders would undoubtedly “cause to disruption and a temporary surge in illicit border crossings,” according to court documents submitted last week by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.

She continued, “The administration in no way attempts to downplay the gravity of that issue. But extending permanently a public-health measure that everyone now agrees has outlived its public-health basis is hardly the answer to the immigration problem.

Local governments and humanitarian organisations on the border have issued warnings that they are already overworked and underprepared for an increase in the number of asylum seekers.

For instance, as part of a larger strategy to deal with the rising number of asylum seekers on the city’s streets, officials in the Texan city of El Paso this week proclaimed a state of emergency and erected a temporary 1,000-bed shelter in the city’s convention centre.

Officials in the city expressed fear last week that they wouldn’t be able to cope with a major increase in the number of individuals who need food, lodging, and assistance organising transportation further into the US.

El Pasoans Fighting Hunger Foodbank CEO Susan Goodell stated local non-governmental organisations had been warned to anticipate “further surges” if Title 42 was abolished.

[embedpost slug=”under-new-policy-the-biden-administration-will-admit-some-venezuelan-migrants/”]