{"id":25297,"date":"2021-12-17T11:27:32","date_gmt":"2021-12-17T16:27:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=25297"},"modified":"2021-12-17T11:27:33","modified_gmt":"2021-12-17T16:27:33","slug":"remain-in-mexico-lite-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2021\/12\/17\/remain-in-mexico-lite-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"U.S.-Based Reception Centers Invite More Border Crossings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Looking to borrow trouble from Europe, whose border crises<\/a> are well documented, the Biden administration is weighing plans to build a series of reception centers to welcome migrants. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Washington Post<\/a> report this week suggested that the Euro model offers Democrats a palatable alternative to the Trump-era \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d<\/a> program. President Joe Biden grudgingly pledged to restart the program (formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, MPP) while his lawyers keep fighting to overturn the court order that obligated him to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources say U.S.-based\nreception centers would house migrants, providing recreation and educational\nprograms, medical services and legal counsel, while enabling them to come and go. Though the operational specifics are as sketchy\nas the security details, the Post indicated that the cost\n\u201cwould be considerable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With nearly half of this year\u2019s 1.7 million migrants<\/a> at the southern border allowed to enter the U.S., proponents pitch reception centers as a \u201chumane\u201d way to manage an ever-growing backlog of asylum cases. Recognizing that immigrant advocates\u2019 demand to immediately release all claimants into the U.S. is a political non-starter, the administration sees the centers as a tool to soften bad border optics. But will they?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The centers\nwould almost certainly be challenged as a violation of U.S. court limits on\ndetaining underage migrants. Notably, the European-based facilities have not\nconsistently produced faster adjudications of asylum claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest\ndownside of the U.S. setting up full-service accommodations on this side of the\nborder is that it will encourage more crossings. The White House has already\ntipped its hand on that score.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even as the administration promised to reinstate the Remain in Mexico policy, Mexican authorities and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have been collaborating to pull previously removed illegal aliens back into this country<\/a><\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This Bidenized\nversion of Remain in Mexico \u2013 a cynical scheme that \u201cmeters in\u201d expelled\nmigrants at the Texas border \u2013 is yet another White House vision for allowing\njust about everyone who shows up to enter, but without the bad optics of chaos\nat the border. Reception centers are just one more ploy to advance an\nopen-borders mission whose costs and consequences are truly incalculable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\ncourt order to reinstate MPP, which has a proven track record of discouraging\nbogus asylum seekers, provides clear guidance to the administration. Instead,\nTeam Biden seems stubbornly bent on accommodating illegal aliens, rather than\ndeterring them.
\n
\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Looking to borrow trouble from Europe, whose border crises are well documented, the Biden administration is weighing plans to build a series of reception centers to welcome migrants. A Washington Post report this week suggested that the Euro model offers Democrats a palatable alternative to the Trump-era \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d program. President Joe Biden grudgingly<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":23869,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[10412],"tags":[1242,1524,1560,6558],"yst_prominent_words":[2122,2530,5406,2043,2517,2249,5232,2297,2008,2048,2188,12723,3792,2125,12722,12721,11383,1939,1998,2715],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25297"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25298,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25297\/revisions\/25298"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/23869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25297"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=25297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}