President Biden’s proposal to essentially ban asylum at the Southern border has infuriated immigration advocates who equate his policies with those of the Trump administration.
“With the introduction of this proposed rule, Trump’s cruel playbook has now become Biden’s legacy,” Bilal Askaryar, interim manager for the #WelcomeWithDignity campaign, said during a Feb. 22 online press briefing.
Bilal Askaryar
The proposed White House rule would limit asylum eligibility at the border to migrants who previously applied for protection in another nation enroute to the United States. It also would disqualify migrants who previously entered the country illegally.
The rule is to be published in the Federal Register Feb. 23, followed by a 30-day public comment period.
Under current law, asylum seekers must present themselves to authorities in the United States to appeal for protection, regardless of how they entered the country.
Cruel and likely illegal
“Policies like an asylum transit ban that was proposed … are in effect a ban on Black, brown, indigenous and poor people,” Askaryar said. “Despite this, President Biden is doubling down on cruel and likely illegal policies that will undermine our life-saving asylum system. If President Biden goes forward with this rule, he might as well dismantle the Statue of Liberty with it.”
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, noted federal courts rejected two similar Trump administration bans.
“We’ve revived the Trump administration’s death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach.”
“We’ve revived the Trump administration’s death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach,” she said. “Instead of strengthening asylum protections amid an unprecedented global displacement crisis, this rule would seek to shirk and outsource our legal and moral obligations to the most vulnerable.”
The Biden administration claims its proposed rule would, in fact, help protect the vulnerable from human traffickers and cartels by disincentivizing migration toward the U.S. border.
“Smuggling networks enable and exploit this unprecedented movement of people, putting migrants’ lives at risk for their own financial gain,” the U.S. departments of Justice and Homeland Security said in a summary of the order.
The rule would require migrants to apply for asylum in one of the nations they travel through on their way north, which would also help reduce crowding at the border, the government said.
Growing backlog
“Meanwhile, the current asylum system … has contributed to a growing backlog of cases awaiting review by asylum officers and immigration judges,” the Justice/Homeland Security summary said. “The practical result of this growing backlog is that those deserving of protection may have to wait years for their claims to be granted, while individuals who are ultimately found not to merit protection may spend years in the United States before being issued a final order of removal.”
Another rationale for the asylum ban is that humanitarian parole — which is temporary — has been expanded for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela who can demonstrate need and have sponsors to care for them in the United States.
The administration also said it is increasing refugee processing in the Western Hemisphere and has streamlined the asylum application process through the new CBP One app, which migrants must use outside the United States to arrange appointments at ports of entry.
“These and other available pathways increase the accessibility of humanitarian protection and other immigration benefits in ways that provide a lawful, safe and orderly mechanism for migrants to make their protection claims,” the rule states.
But immigration advocates dispute the administration’s logic. For starters, they point out requiring migrants to apply for asylum in other nations makes little sense given the realities of the region.
“These are human beings desperate for safety, not political hot potatoes to pass around to anyone but the U.S.”
“The overwhelming majority of transit countries don’t have sufficient humanitarian protection systems and have seen their own citizens migrate en mass due to rampant violence, corruption, poverty and climate disasters,” O’Mara Vignarajah said. “These are human beings desperate for safety, not political hot potatoes to pass around to anyone but the U.S.”
The phone-based app the administration touts is rife with glitches and isn’t available in the languages of all migrants, she added, noting, “Many families face immediate danger and cannot afford to wait for months on end in their countries” while waiting for the app to work.
Extreme danger
If enacted, the asylum ban also will place LGBTQ migrants in extreme danger, predicted Aaron Morris, executive director of Immigration Equality.
“What this rule does is it strips them of their right to a day in court and subjects them to months or years of additional persecution. And that will literally cost the lives of LGBTQ refugees,” he insisted.
Guerline Jozef
Guerline Jozef, founder and executive director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, said a similar fate awaits “Black, brown, indigenous, poor and underprivileged” migrants.
“We must make sure the United States upholds its mandate to provide protection and safety for those in need,” she said. “Seeking asylum is the right thing for them. Forcing them into danger is the wrong thing for us as a people and as a country to do.”
“President Biden campaigned on saving the soul of America. What we continue to see and witness is not saving the soul of America.”
Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Right Project, reported Biden’s proposed rule will not go into effect without a legal challenge.
Mirroring Trump
“This rule is sort of a combination of the Trump administration’s first two asylum bans … which we and our partners challenged successfully.”
The first was overturned because it required migrants to enter the United States through ports of entry to apply for asylum, he said.
“That was struck down because Congress has very specifically said you may apply for asylum whether or not you enter at a port of entry,” he said. “And the reason for that … is a lot of people don’t know where the port-of-entry is sometimes.”
The second Trump ban was overturned because it required application for asylum in a third country, Gelernt added.
“As people have already illustrated, there is just no functioning asylum system in those countries, so that’s just an illusory promise, and that’s why we got it struck down,” he noted.
Askaryar said #WelcomeWithDignity planned a Feb. 23 rally in front of the White House to protest the rule. It is urging citizens to use the 30-day federal rule comment period to express opposition.
Numerous other immigration and humanitarian organizations issued statements condemning the president’s plan.
“We urge the administration to ensure that people with valid asylum claims can bring those claims in the U.S., consistent with our nation’s long-cherished role as a beacon of safety and freedom for people facing persecution.”
“We urge the administration to ensure that people with valid asylum claims can bring those claims in the U.S., consistent with our nation’s long-cherished role as a beacon of safety and freedom for people facing persecution,” said Jennie Murray, president of the National Immigration Forum. “The administration should modify this rule to preserve longstanding asylum protections.”
Mistaken notion
The administration would be mistaken if it believes establishing the rule with a temporary status would prevent future abuses, she said.
“Our policies should prioritize legal pathways that relieve pressure on the border and on the asylum system,” she said. “Migrants seeking asylum deserve solutions that protect them, not policies that make it easier to deport them to countries where their safety could be in jeopardy.”
Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., criticized the rule as a violation of the president’s campaign promise to restore U.S. immigration practices to pre-Trump settings.
“In continuing with this rule, the Biden administration is betraying its own commitment to uphold asylum, as well as violating the principles of U.S. law and Catholic social teaching with respect to migration,” she insisted, adding the Biden administration is matching its predecessor in cruel treatment of migrants.
“The previous asylum transit ban was reprehensible and unacceptable, and this version is as well,” she said. “The right to seek asylum through a full and fair process is a bedrock principle of international and domestic law. These new restrictions undermine that right and will have inhumane and horrific consequences for our immigrant brothers and sisters.”
The administration’s claim that the rule will deter migrants from the U.S.-Mexico border will be proven unsustainable, said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights.
“It is extremely disappointing that the Biden administration is once again proposing immigration policies straight out of the Trump and (domestic adviser) Stephen Miller xenophobic playbook,” she said.
“The proposed transit ban — a policy already deemed illegal by our courts — will not deter people who are seeking asylum from coming to the U.S. Instead, it will strip the most vulnerable individuals and families of their rights under U.S. and international law by permitting their rapid return to the danger they are running from.”
Related articles:
Immigration advocates urge U.S. to reform cruel, broken asylum system
Immigration advocate surveys asylum-seekers to measure anxiety and depression
Trump border policies treat asylum seekers as criminals, advocate says