Opinion: The Supreme Court Should Not Have Reestablished the ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy

The Supreme Court ruled recently that the Biden administration must reinstate Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), otherwise known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy. This was a policy passed under the Trump administration.

The political world again saw humanitarian efforts and strong foreign policy pitted against each other. In theory, the “Remain in Mexico” policy is strong and consistent. In reality, however, its effects are far too brutal to justify keeping it intact as it currently stands.

According to The Washington Post, the Supreme Court claims that the Biden administration “failed to show likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the MPP was not arbitrary and capricious.” In other words, the Biden administration must reinstate the policy until they can rescind it for more justifiable reasons.

President Biden now faces a more difficult task with the policy back in place. Liberal and humanitarian advocates as well as immigration rights groups are springing up, testifying of the atrocities that occur after immigrants seek asylum. 

For NPR, U.S. Reporter James Frederick explained that those seeking asylum are “taken into the U.S., processed and then turned around and sent back to Mexico with a court date in a U.S. court. They would have to wait there, outside of the U.S., until their asylum process was finished, which could take years.” He further claims that an advocacy group called Human Rights First “documented more than 1,500 cases of kidnapping, rape and murder of people under this  program.”

The policy’s claims and intentions are legally justifiable—to provide a more detailed vetting process for those seeking safety and international protection in America. The likely unintentional effects that have come from it, however, are an attack on humanitarian treatment. This includes the mistreatment of minority groups.

This becomes a sensitive, multifaceted issue that affects immigrants, minorities, the state of the American government and much more.

For the Christian approaching this policy and all that it encompasses, a forced, extremely problematic dichotomy emerges: love people and serve them well or seek justice through governmental law.

If you truly want to “open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the poor and needy” (Prov. 31:9), you will struggle to also advocate for every man being “subject to the governing authorities,” (Rom. 13:1-2) when those authorities establish a policy that makes people poor and needy. The basis of the Christian life, morally, is a struggle between seeking justice and loving mercy (Micah 6:8). These two facets are difficult to reconcile; nonetheless, it must be done. God expects us to both seek justice (whether through governmental authorities or otherwise) and love mercy.

So, in seeking justice and following the laws of the land, it would seem that the policy is a good, desirable thing. It would ideally regulate national protection well. 

But because it draws out the process of entering the U.S. on the grounds of asylum, it pushes people to the borders for years and lacks any provision of safety before entering the country. The policy then creates an atmosphere of abuse, violence and torment for those waiting for safety. Therefore, the policy is the antithesis of loving mercy and serving the poor and needy.

If this policy on regulating asylum will contribute both legally and ethically, it must be tweaked. If such adjustments cannot be made lawfully, it should be removed altogether for the sake of the poor and oppressed.  

Bower is an opinion writer. Follow him on Twitter at @j_with_the_pen.