May 22, 2024

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton turned away a Republican challenge to a Biden Administration program that flies 30,000 “asylum-seekers” a month directly into the United States. The asylees being allowed in under this program are coming from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. In dismissing the challenge, Judge Tipton claimed that the states affected had not shown an economic burden.

Advertisement

U.S. District Judge Drew B. Tipton in Victoria, Texas, ruled in favor of the humanitarian parole program that allows up to 30,000 asylum-seekers into the U.S. each month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela combined. Eliminating the program would undercut a broader policy that seeks to encourage migrants to use the Biden administration’s preferred pathways into the U.S. or face stiff consequences.

Texas and 20 other states that sued argued the program is forcing them to spend millions on health care, education, and public safety for the migrants. An attorney working with the Texas attorney general’s office in the legal challenge said that the program “created a shadow immigration system.”

Advocates for the federal government countered that migrants admitted through the policy helped with a U.S. farm labor shortage.

It’s important to note that at least one of these countries – Venezuela – is refusing to accept the repatriation of any of its citizens from the United States.


See Related: Venezuela Refusing to Accept Deportations From US, Mexico

Elon Musk Exposes Biden’s Little-Known Program That Has Flown 320,000 Illegal Aliens Into the Country

Advertisement


Judge Tipton’s entire opinion may be viewed here.

The suit was brought by 21 states, those being Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Among others, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is named as a defendant. 

In his conclusion, Judge Tipton writes:

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not proven that Texas has suffered an injury and therefore do not have standing to maintain this suit.18 This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.19 The Court DENIES all requested relief and will enter a final judgment by separate order.

However: In another, seemingly unrelated case, the state of Texas argued against the $1.7 trillion 2022 omnibus spending bill that was passed unconstitutionally, specifically, without the House of Representatives having a physical quorum; Texas was successful in that case, in part because they claimed that the state would have suffered direct and negative impacts from parts of the bill, which would seem to establish a precedent.


See Related: Dear U.S. House: That $1.7T Omnibus Spending Bill You Passed in 2022? Unconstitutional

Advertisement


It’s unclear how any of the 21 states that brought this suit against the asylum program are somehow not on the hook for paying for housing, medical care, and so forth for these “asylum seekers,” when local governments across the country are screaming bloody murder about the strain illegal immigration is placing on their budgets.

Tipton, it should be noted, dismissed the case without prejudice, leaving the door open for an appeal, which is expected.

This is just one more item in the ongoing controversy over immigration and asylum practices, which will certainly be one of the primary issues, if not the issue, of the 2024 presidential election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *