{"id":25367,"date":"2022-01-26T13:59:44","date_gmt":"2022-01-26T18:59:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=25367"},"modified":"2022-01-26T13:59:45","modified_gmt":"2022-01-26T18:59:45","slug":"stalling-mpp-reimplementation-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2022\/01\/26\/stalling-mpp-reimplementation-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden Admin Slow-Walks \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A\u00a0federal\u00a0court order<\/a> directed the Biden administration to reimplement the \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d program in December, but the administration is slow-walking its reimplementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also referred to as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), the Trump-era program required asylum seekers to remain in Northern Mexico while they awaited their court hearing in the U.S. Its intention was to deter illegal immigration, reduce fraudulent asylum claims, and to end policies that released illegal aliens into the interior of the country where they would never be heard from again. In just under a year, the program returned some 70,000<\/a> mostly fraudulent asylum seekers to Mexico. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biden administration has stated\nits intent to terminate this program. It has already attempted to officially\nend the program a number of times, and has repeatedly said<\/a> that \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d contained\n\u201cendemic flaws, imposed unjustifiable human costs, pulled resources and\npersonnel away from other priority efforts, and failed to address the root\ncauses of irregular migration.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And so, while the administration\ndid restart the program this past December, it is doing so merely to comply\nwith a federal court order until it figures out how to appropriately rescind\nthe program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

New data<\/a> from December reveals that the Biden administration is slow-walking the implementation of the program in any way that it can. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2021, U.S. Customs and\nBorder Protection (CBP) enrolled 267 individuals in MPP, all of whom were\nsingle adults. Of the 267 individuals, 162 were from Nicaragua, 59 from\nVenezuela, 32 from Cuba, seven from Colombia, and seven from Ecuador.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not a single migrant from the Northern Triangle countries\u2014who represent the vast majority<\/a> of monthly southern border apprehensions\u2014was enrolled in the program. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Biden administration has yet to fully reimplement the program in all nine<\/a> southwest border sectors. It is currently operating it in just three: San Diego, El Paso, and the Rio Grande Valley Sectors (Rio Grande Valley as of just a week ago<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slow-walking the restart of this program with the intention of permanently terminating it is a colossal mistake amid a historic border and immigration crisis with no end in sight. Under the Biden administration, illegal immigration totals have levels\u00a0never seen before<\/a>\u00a0in U.S. history, with the backlog of pending cases in the immigration courts also reaching its highest totals\u00a0on record<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A\u00a0federal\u00a0court order directed the Biden administration to reimplement the \u201cRemain in Mexico\u201d program in December, but the administration is slow-walking its reimplementation. Also referred to as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), the Trump-era program required asylum seekers to remain in Northern Mexico while they awaited their court hearing in the U.S. Its intention was to<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":73,"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":[11112,1524,983,6558],"yst_prominent_words":[12868,2122,3552,5406,10470,2043,2249,5232,4029,4481,12871,9159,3460,2011,1963,2048,1944,3459,3457,12870],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25367"}],"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\/73"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25367"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25367\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25368,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25367\/revisions\/25368"}],"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=25367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25367"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=25367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}