A Senate panel voted Thursday to approve a resolution in support of the “Remain in Mexico” immigration policy, after a two-hour hearing about the border enforcement approach implemented in the first Trump administration.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-6 along party lines to approve the measure on the policy, which requires asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border to stay outside of the United States as their claims are processed.
Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., in his first hearing and markup leading the panel this Congress, condemned the Biden administration for reversing the immigration policies of the Trump administration.
“President Biden discarded proven strategies like ‘Remain in Mexico,’ which was undeniably successful in deterring illegal entries,” Paul said. “The results were immediate and disastrous. During the last full month of [the] Trump administration when ‘Remain in Mexico’ was in effect, border encounters were under 70,000. After its repeal, the number surged to over 100,000 and continued to rise.”
Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, declined to offer support for the “Remain in Mexico” policy, cautioning against measures that would empower Mexican drug cartels, as some critics say happened with the Trump-era regulation.
“Although billed as a means of deterring migrants, the policy’s real success was dumping fuel into the fire of cartel activity in Mexico,” Peters said. “This particular policy accelerated dangerous illegal activity led by cartels in Mexico even more. It is estimated that these cartels have raked in billions of dollars from this criminal activity through drug trafficking, extortion, human trafficking, and smuggling and ransom kidnappings of asylum seekers.”
The committee voted 7-8 to reject an amendment offered by Peters that would have required the executive branch to certify to Congress any policy change for immigration would not have negative effects such as increased incidents of rape of asylum seekers, human trafficking or family separation.
Paul encouraged a vote against the amendment on the basis that “people are being raped and murdered with or without Remain in Mexico.”
“There’s no way we can guarantee there will be no rape and murder because the rape and murder is in a lawless place,” Paul said. “The cartels control a sixth of Mexico. So I think it’s well-intentioned, but I can’t vote for something that we couldn’t provably say that we will eliminate all violence in northern Mexico. So I don’t think it’s a practical way.”
At the hearing, witnesses with expertise on immigration issues offered contrasting views on the impact of “Remain in Mexico” policy, much of the disagreement based on its impact on asylum-seekers known for crossing several countries before reaching the United States.
Kenneth Cuccinelli, a former top official with the Homeland Security Department during the first Trump administration, offered the most full-throated defense of the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
“The real success of programs like the Remain in Mexico program is not just that they screen out fake asylum seekers, but that they help to deter illegal aliens from coming in the first place,” Cuccinelli said. “The goal of true border security is to be so effective at keeping attempted illegal entrants out that they never try to come in the first place.”
Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and now resident fellow for Center for Immigration Studies, said the “Remain in Mexico” policy instituted protections that prevented the exploitation of the use of children by adult migrants and smugglers.
“It discourages illegal entrants from gaining our humanitarian protections by making bogus or weak asylum claims, solely to be released to live and work in the United States for years while their claims were being considered,” Arthur said.
Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at The Washington Office on Latin America, said based on his field and data work on the border the “Remain in Mexico” policy had the impact of empowering drug cartels who exploit migrants on the Mexican side of the U.S. southern border.
“The evidence I saw was clear: Remain in Mexico enriched the cartels, it failed to meaningfully deter migration, and it soured relations with a key ally,” Isacson said. “Proceeding [with] it again would harm U.S. interests.”
Before the vote on the “Remain in Mexico” resolution, the committee approved a separate measure instituting the rules for the panel in the 119th Congress. Peters lamented a change in the rules he suggested would limit the subpoena power of Democrats on the committee, but ultimately the panel voted by voice vote in favor of the measure.
The post Senate panel votes in support of ‘Remain in Mexico’ border policy appeared first on Roll Call.
