President Trump scored a win on Friday, when a federal appeals court gave a to the president’s program called . The idea is to keep asylum seekers south of the border until they get their day in court. It’s urgently needed to help border towns like McAllen, Texas, and Las Cruces, New Mexico, which are being overwhelmed.
The same critics pouncing on Trump’s call toare also opposing his Remain in Mexico program. For these cynical critics, nothing matters but politics. They have no real interest in providing relief to the border towns, American taxpayers, or migrants caught in the chaos.
Over, including a record number of families with children, were apprehended sneaking across the border in March, many claiming asylum. The border towns are dumping grounds for them once they’re released from detention facilities. They lack food, shelter, or the ability to speak English. Las Cruces for donated blankets, clothing, food, and diapers. Shelters and churches are full, bus stations chaotic, and charities tapped out. McAllen Mayor James Darling begged for a “ .”
But like every option Trump has tried, including detaining migrant families in shelters until their claims are heard, the Remain in Mexico program is being challenged by a cadre of left-wing, open-border lawyers. Its future hinges on a ruling by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later this week, and perhaps a final decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the meantime, migrants scrape together bus fare to escape the mess. If they don’t have family already here, they pick a destination they’ve heard is immigrant-friendly. Word spreads fast about which communities will welcome asylum seekers, house them, and shield them from immigration enforcement.
For example, Portland, Mainecash welfare, housing, and job training, and is considering letting them vote in local elections. That information has traveled all the way to McAllen’s shelters. Migrants hear Portland is the .
Now that Portland’s shelters, the same city politicians who boast about welcoming migrants whine that Portland shouldn’t bear the cost. Portland . Lesson: It’s easy to be big-hearted using somebody else’s money.
Cost is behind a lot of the opposition to Trump’s sanctuary city proposal. San Francisco Mayor London Breed denounced Trump’s proposal as “,” implying that anyone opposed to busloads of migrants must be a racist. But race isn’t the issue. What’s actually scary is the cost of sheltering busloads of needy people.
As left-wing icon Cher tweeted Monday, “.”
And why should taxpayers foot the bill, when only aboutactually qualify for asylum? The rest are scammers. They sneak across the border, tell a border agent they’re , and get released inside the U.S. Half . They’ve gotten what they want, jumping ahead of those who wait years to enter legally.
Word about how to game the system has spread, and now migrants are coming through the southern border from as far as.
One Texas resident asked why “” can’t “ ” the immigrants with free emergency room services, schooling, and other costly benefits.
Truth is, towns across the U.S. already doing that are strained by the cost. Trump’s Remain in Mexico program is designed to alleviate that problem. The more asylum-seekers Mexico shelters, the more money stays in American taxpayers’ pockets.
So far. Litigation stalled the effort.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has twice recognized a president’s authority to limit who enters the country, including under the guise of asylum. Trust the high court to uphold the Remain in Mexico program, bringing relief to border towns and U.S. taxpayers everywhere.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.