Court Says U.S. Cannot Expel Migrant Families to Countries Where They Face Harm
A federal judge wrote that migrants could face "horrific consequences" if expelled to certain places, particularly Mexico and Central American countries.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the government cannot use a pandemic public health order to expel migrant families back into countries, particularly Mexico and Central American countries, where they may face persecution or torture.
Back in 2020, President Donald Trump invoked Title 42 of the Public Health Service Act, which gives federal health officials wide discretion to enact disease mitigation measures, to stop asylum-seeking migrants from Mexico or Canada from entering the U.S. under the pretext of stopping the spread of COVID-19. Title 42 allowed Customs and Border Patrol to expel migrants upon arrival. President Joe Biden kept the policy in place after his inauguration in 2021. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups took the Biden administration to court after negotiations to put an immediate halt to Title 42 policy failed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed that the government can still expel migrant families under Title 42 but cannot send them to countries where they could face serious harm. Judge Justin Walker, who wrote the decision, said that even the Biden administration acknowledged "the quite horrific circumstances that non-citizens are in in some of the countries that are at issue here."
Julia Neusner, an associate attorney in the Refugee Protection Program at Human Rights First, said in her written testimony that asylum seekers expelled to Mexico are targets for criminal organizations. Migrants often face kidnapping, extortion, and other violent attacks, she said. In one instance, Neusner noted that armed men kidnapped a woman and her daughter after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) expelled them and held them for two months before they could escape. Neusner spoke to more than ten asylum seekers who were kidnapped after DHS expelled them, she said.
Taylor Levy, an immigration attorney in Texas who also provided written testimony, said that of the 398 migrant families she's represented since May 2021 "41% experienced an actual or attempted kidnapping or both."
Although most of the expulsions go to Mexico, migrants expelled to their Central American home countries, like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, are also likely to face persecution. Cecilia Menjivar, a sociology professor at UCLA who researches immigration in Central America and provided testimony for the case, cited a United Nations study that said 800,000 people in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala sought protection in their home countries or crossed international borders to escape gang violence and persecution.
The deputy director of ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and the attorney who argued the appeal, Lee Gelernt, tells Reason that although the court's decision still upholds the government's ability under Title 42 to expel migrant families, the decision will force the federal government to set up a screening process. Gerlernt says any migrants that claim they could experience persecution or torture in a country cannot face immediate expulsion, and the government must ensure that they don't face harm. Gerlernt says the logistics of setting up such a screening process could force the Biden administration to get rid of the Title 42 order altogether.
"The Title 42 policy is not only unlawful but has caused grave harm because it allowed people fleeing danger to be summarily expelled without any screening to determine whether they would be persecuted upon return," Gelernt tells Reason.
Gelernt also says the court's decision seriously calls into question Title 42's purpose because it acknowledges that the pandemic health order did not seriously deter against COVID-19. Judge Walker described the supposed protection from COVID-19 Title 42 provides as "questionable." He says it is far from clear whether the public health order serves any purpose. Gelernt says it doesn't make sense that the border continues to impose COVID-19 restrictions as the rest of the country eases its measures.
The Biden administration has said nothing pertaining to the future of Title 42 at this time.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So the USA under a democratic rule is out?
And Democratic rule is in!
Remember, small-D democracy is racist.
So I guess the DC Circuit Court Appeals thinks Mexico is a shithole country?
It's okay when they say it.
They're pretty directly saying that living in Mexico is worse than dying of COVID.
And that these Covid-19 measures were bullshit that didn't actually do anything.
Can we let them pass through to Canada?
Is there any person or group of people that the D.C. courts think that the U.S. could deport? Can the D.C. courts think of any reason that would allow for someone to be deported? No, and No. Reason writers and the D.C. Courts think everyone from everywhere should be invited to move to the U.S. They can Issue them their voter I.D., already registered as a Democrat, along with their SNAP benefit card and the middle class can just pay more taxes. Right?
Hey! BTW, how many white law professors have quit their tenured position to allow for a POC to be appointed in their place? That many, huh? We are making progress, I see. From "zero" to "I won't do it but blue-collar workers should start the trend".
The judge is affirming the consequent. Good people don't like to live near bad people. If there are bad people in another country then the people who leave it must be good.
WTF is wrong with you that you want to deport good people from the U.S.?
I just want the good to be spread about more equitably rather than hoarding it all for a White Supremacist country like the US.
That's true, clearly Mexico is actually in dire need of these wonderful people if it's such a shithole.
Heh, according to the Left they'll face persecution here, in this thoroughly racist country.
Good point. We should pass the migrants on to Canada.
But their non-existent bank accounts might be frozen!
Oooh, there's that "horrific".
Court Says U.S. Cannot Expel Migrant Families to Countries Where They Face Harm
A federal judge wrote that migrants could face "horrific consequences" if expelled to certain places, particularly Mexico and Central American countries.
Is this a roundabout way of saying America might be better than some of these places?
The argument, given the totality of the circs, is, "Dying of COVID anywhere else is better than living in Mexico."
A federal judge wrote that migrants could face "horrific consequences" if expelled to certain places, particularly Mexico and Central American countries.
Remember when Trump called those places "shitholes" and Reason got mad?
Horrific is definitely the word I most associate to every hole I have ever had to shit in.
"horrific consequences" if expelled to certain places, particularly Mexico
Fuck you too, Senor Tu Honor.
"Roman Moroni Deported To Sweden - Claims He's Not From There"
With all the gun violence here it would be wrong not to expel them.
Is gang violence qualifies as "persecution" under amnesty standards, we might as well just admit some central American nations as new states.
This is willful ignorance displayed by supposed learned adults who run the court and the country. A bloated empire plagued by inflation and homelessness and currently engaged in the next cold war cannot be admitting hundreds of thousands of foreigners who simply walk through the border. This is how nations commit suicide.
If you think a 37 old migrant mother with two kids who snuck through the border is going to be anything more than a Walmart cashier, you're dreaming. The future isn't all that bright for her two kids. Whatever cheap labor they provide for big companies will be offset by the insane amount of money we print to sustain them.
Why can't we deport them to Mexico, and give Mexico economic incentive and resources to take care of these people? We're not lifting a finger to spare Ukrainians from being bombed, taking only the safest measures. We only allow reality to supersede morality in certain instances?
> This is how nations commit suicide.
Well, the judge squeezing the trigger as hard as he can certainly hopes so. This shit is deliberate at this point.
At the risk of sounding unfeeling, the following comes to mind. How come it seems that this country and it’s citizens suffer unending burdens arising out of the antics of criminal gangs in Mexico, gangs that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to combat.
Not that it should have an impact on immigration policy, but those gangs are as powerful as they are because of our puritan stances on drug consumption. This is actually a great example of governments being powerless against market forces. The drug market is so vast that it has overpowered the Mexican government to the point that the cartels basically run the country. The cartels are so wealthy that they can buy whatever politicians they like, and they can afford to kill the ones who won't get on board.
We could end prohibition and fix that problem, but most Americans care more about busybodying their neighbor than they do about a bunch of Mexicans killing each other.
If rulings can be based on what "could" happen, then there is no rule of law, just what some idiot judge can imagine could take place.
They could also face horrific consequences by moving to Chicago but I don't see the judge outlawing that.
Judge on the WRITTEN LAW not feelings...Every asylum seeker has a sob story that cannot be verified.
Deport them all.
Start with the criminal ones, the handicap ones, the old and sick first.
They take and take and take without putting anything back.
Multiple studies showing the opposite always turn out to be lies and skewed numbers.
Simple truth is: MOST HISPANIC/BLACK ILLEGALS COST THE TAXPAYER MORE THAN THEY BRING IN TOWARDS THE COUNTRY.
Shall we talk about the crime issue they bring?
The cost of having their multiple children attend things for free and feeding them?
The overloading the welfare system?
The overloading the Hospitals and ERS using them as free clinics?
The 2020 Census under-counted some people and over-counted some other people:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/10/us-2020-census-huge-undercount-latino-population
According to the report, Latinos had a net undercount of nearly 5%. The Black population had a net undercount of 3.3%, a slight increase from a 2.1% shortfall a decade ago. American Indian and Alaska Natives living on reservations had a net undercount of 5.6%, up from 4.9% in the last census. The non-Latino white population had a net overcount in the 2020 census of 1.6% while Asians had a net overcount of 2.6%.
Not sure how anyone could have been over-counted.
Which raises the question -- if you have a more accurate count than the Census itself, why do we still need the Census?
I've been assured by expert goodthinkers that minorities face grievous harm in America every day, so they clearly can't be released in the United States.
The courts have always ruled the executive has very broad powers on immigration. I don’t really understand how the court can basically prevent the other branches from exercising their power here. Did the judge say this policy is unconstitutional and on what basis? Seems like total power hungry BS.
Actually, trading people is not a bad idea. IMO many (most?) immigrants have more work ambitions than many native-born Americans, especially the ones who spend their time as cosplay activists--and champions for open borders. Perhaps a one-for-one swap would indeed bring the immigrant ingenuity and economic benefits that the activists promote, while getting rid of some annoying dead weight.
ps. I would start with the humanities departments (faculty and students) at universities. Study abroad--forever!
I say fence in DC and drop them all there and let the politicians and policy wonks deal with the problem up close and personal.
Democrats claim gays, brown people, immigrants etc are all persecuted here. So we should expel them right?
I mean, what I'm hearing is that a Federal Judge just upheld Trump's claim that Mexico is a shithole country.
Republicans.
White males.
Christians.
Straight males.
Non-feminist women.
White collars.
Trust the experts.
[JOIN NOW] I really make A LOT OF MONEY ($200-$300/hour) online from my laptop. Last month I received almost $50,000. this line work is simple and straightforward. You don’t need to go to the office, it’s online work from home. qrc You become independent after joining this position. I really appreciate my friend.
Who pointed it out to me SITE….., http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/
That would have been an amazing counterargument.
"Your Honor, we present as evidence that these migrants are unsafe here in America the words of the lawyer for the plaintiff herself..."