Title 42, the pandemic-era rule that allowed the U.S. government to expel asylum-seekers at the southern border was struck down by a federal judge Tuesday.
It’s unclear what the ruling, or the Biden administration’s response, could mean for the flow of migrants through San Antonio.
Federal rule changes in mid-October drastically restricting the number of Venezuelan migrants, which once made up 90% of those arriving in San Antonio, have yet to reduce numbers at the city’s migrant resource center, a spokeswoman with Catholic Charities said earlier this month.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled Tuesday that the U.S. can no longer use Title 42 to expel migrants. He called the Trump-era policy used to manage the flow of migrants “arbitrary and capricious,” said it violates the Administrative Procedure Act and that it had little proven benefit to public health.
Sullivan granted a temporary stay Wednesday morning after the government asked for more time to prepare, but he made clear, through his use of all capital letters that he did so “WITH GREAT RELUCTANCE.”
Immigration rulings have long impacted the city of San Antonio, due to its size and proximity to the southern U.S.-Mexico border. Since the summer, tens of thousands of migrants have passed through San Antonio to get to cities across the country. Some have stayed.
In response to the high numbers of migrants gathering in San Antonio’s downtown and airport, the city opened a migrant resource center in July, which has recently shifted management to a religious nonprofit organization, Catholic Charities.
Funding for the center will be reimbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The city will submit a request to FEMA on Nov. 28, according to information obtained through an open records request, for reimbursement of operational costs from July through September.
For months, the City of San Antonio has discussed the possibility of Title 42 ending and what it would mean for the city’s resources.
In a September interview with the San Antonio Report, Mayor Ron Nirenberg said changes to Title 42 would not have a significant impact on the city when it comes to migrant processing.
“The reality is the migrant flows that happen all throughout the year are the result of people seeking a better life,” he said. “That continues regardless of Title 42.”
Nirenberg said the city and Catholic Charities are going to have to deal with federal immigration changes as they come, but that San Antonio’s migrant resource center is equipped to handle those changes.
In May, Nirenberg asked the Department of Homeland Security to distribute migrants more evenly throughout the state.
“For us to be successful in the effort of doing what we’re doing, they’ve got to load-balance throughout the border region and throughout the major metros that are handling the next step past the border,” he said in September about his request.
Title 42 was recently expanded to manage the massive influx of Venezuelan migration at the southern border by blocking their arrival from Mexico. Since then, many have been in limbo, stuck waiting in tents and in migrant centers in Tijuana and other Mexican border towns.
Catholic Charities did not respond to questions about how the end of Title 42 might affect center operations.
U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-San Antonio), whose district includes most of Texas’ border with Mexico, criticized the ruling, saying it has been “the only policy in place that has kept Border Patrol and law enforcement agencies above water.”
“In its absence, there will be complete chaos in my district and across the country,” he said. “Canceling this policy without putting up any guardrails to deter illegal immigration once again highlights this Administration’s indifference to how severely our border communities continue to suffer from the border crisis.”
It’s difficult to say whether the ruling will lead to an immediate influx of asylum-seekers at the border, said Robert Painter, legal director for the immigration nonprofit American Gateways, but the rule’s impact has already been felt.
“The program effectively denied more than a million individuals and families escaping violence in their home countries the right to request protection in the U.S., as is their right under federal and international law,” he said.
Painter said with Title 42 struck down, anyone who claims fear of returning to their country due to persecution or torture would be allowed to have an asylum claim reviewed. He said he was uncertain what will happen to Venezuelans forced to remain in Mexico.
“Presumably, if the underlying legal basis for the Venezuelan parole program was Title 42, then yes, individuals expelled under that program should be able to return and request asylum,” he said.
The temporary stay is in everyone’s interest due to “chaos” that could be caused by a fresh influx of migrants seeking asylum, Painter said.
The dismantling of Title 42 as an immigration tool does not support claims there is an “open border,” he said, calling that a rhetorical term used to create fear that there is a mass surge in migration happening.
“If there were open borders, we wouldn’t see people dying in tractor-trailers like we did in San Antonio, trying to avoid border security, when there’s a tremendous amount of law enforcement stationed along the border,” Painter said.