SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
asylum ban
President Trump Must Reverse Course on Border Policy to Uphold Human Rights
Elected officials, civil society, and our communities must band together to resist the current assaults on asylum, and push for humane and welcoming border policies.
Feb 12, 2025
On January 20, the fate of asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border was abruptly changed as U.S. President Donald Trump announced new executive orders further dismantling the right to asylum.
That morning, the patients I saw in our pop-up clinic at a migrant shelter were full of apprehension about the threatened Trump policies, but a sense of hope remained. One young man told me he was so excited he could barely sleep because his CBP One appointment, which would allow him and his family to request parole to enter the U.S. while they applied for asylum, was scheduled for the following day.
By noon, the tone had changed. People tried desperately to log in to the CBP One app but were given error messages. Cancelation notices arrived in the email inboxes of those who had already been granted appointments. One patient who had left his country fleeing political violence and had been waiting for eight months at the border for the appointment, frantically held his phone up to show me the email. “Now what are we supposed to do?” he lamented, “We have nowhere safe to go.”
There is much work to be done now to uphold human rights in the U.S. But we must not forget the people who are desperate for relief at our borders.
Indeed, the end of the CBP One appointment program has effectively closed the door on asylum seekers at the U.S.’ southern border. With the ongoing restrictions of the asylum ban and border closure rules put in place during the Biden administration, there are now no viable legal pathways to entry for the hundreds of thousands of migrants seeking safety at the border.
The effect on our patients waiting in Mexico has been devastating, and it’s only going to get worse. Patients came into the clinic reporting depression, panic attacks, and despair. Some had just narrowly survived being kidnapped, beaten, or raped, and were petrified about being targeted again by the organized crime groups that prey on migrants in Mexican border cities.
Over the years in our clinics, we have seen that increased restrictions in border policies—such as Trump’s Remain in Mexico—increase danger, injuries, mental health problems, childhood developmental problems, and untimely death for asylum seekers trying to make it to the U.S. Most recently, these issues had still been occurring given the long waiting periods of the CBP One system, but now they will undoubtedly worsen.
Being stranded leads people to make impossible choices. Some families will risk (and some lose) their lives trying to cross the swift currents of the Rio Grande or the harsh landscape of the desert. Some families choose to send their children over the border unaccompanied, taking on the trauma of family separation because they see no other way for their child to escape from danger and have a better life.
President Trump says we shouldn’t care about the plight of immigrants and should instead focus on American citizens’ needs—of which, undoubtedly, there are many. But such perspectives miss the bigger picture, and are, in fact, woefully inaccurate. Not only are we able to support immigrants, we desperately need to, for the sake of all of us. Without immigrants, we’d be facing a home care crisis, an agricultural crisis, and our economy would suffer. What’s more, the plight of migrants in transit impacts our communities in the U.S. I have patients at my primary care clinic in Massachusetts who have fallen into a deep depression or whose blood pressure has skyrocketed when a loved one of theirs is lost along the migrant route or is assaulted on the journey. Let alone our international and domestic legal obligations that require us to recognize and honor the right to seek asylum.
As our patients at the migrant shelter reeled from the news of the cancelation of CBP One, one man was still smiling. “I believe the new president will have compassion for us,” he said, standing outside his tent and nodding toward his wife and small children inside. “He has a family too. I pray that he will be able to understand that we need safety for our kids.”
It would be nice. But in the absence of that change of heart, our communities need to take action. Elected officials, civil society, and our communities must band together to resist the current assaults on asylum, and push for humane and welcoming border policies. There is much work to be done now to uphold human rights in the U.S. But we must not forget the people who are desperate for relief at our borders—it’s our obligation, and it’s a matter of life and death.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Victory for Migrant Rights, US Court Blocks 'Cruel' Biden Asylum Restrictions
"The administration now faces a choice: Follow the law, or try to block the ruling from taking effect in 14 days, leaving people seeking safety in grave danger," said the ACLU.
Jul 25, 2023
Immigrant rights advocates on Tuesday applauded a ruling handed down by a U.S. district judge blocking the Biden administration's anti-asylum rule, which places restrictions on migrants who aim to exercise their internationally recognized right to seek asylum at the southern U.S. border.
Judge Jon S. Tigar, an Obama appointee who serves in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, ruled that the new policy is unlawful, as he did when former Republican President Donald Trump imposed similar restrictions.
The measure, which was introduced in May and immediately prompted the ACLU and other legal groups to file a lawsuit on behalf of several rights organizations, requires migrants to prove that they previously sought protections in a third country before applying for asylum in the United States. The Biden administration has said migrants who want to seek asylum should schedule an appointment using an app that connects them to Customs and Border Protection instead of attempting to cross the border.
"To justify limiting eligibility for asylum based on the expansion of other means of entry or protection is to consider factors Congress did not intend to affect such eligibility," wrote Tigar in his ruling.
Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, which joined the ACLU in representing the plaintiffs, said the policy "violates our laws and makes a mockery of our asylum system."
"The court got it right," Crow said. "We urge the administration to stop defending this illegal policy, and instead take immediate steps to establish a fair and humane process that upholds the rights of all people seeking refuge at our nation's doorstep."
Crow noted that the Biden administration recently admitted that "under the ban, people with meritorious legal claims can be barred from asylum and deported to countries where they face grave harm."
"To them, that is an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of border management," she said. "But they are breaking the law, sowing chaos, and putting vulnerable people in harm's way."
Tigar granted the Biden administration's request for a 14-day stay of the ruling, giving officials time to appeal the decision. The White House is expected to appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, if the appeals court also strikes down the policy, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The ruling is a victory, but each day the Biden administration prolongs the fight over its illegal ban, many people fleeing persecution and seeking safe harbor for their families are instead left in grave danger," said Katrina Eiland, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "The promise of America is to serve as a beacon of freedom and hope, and the administration can and should do better to fulfill this promise, rather than perpetuate cruel and ineffective policies that betray it."
In the lawsuit, the ACLU and other groups representing the plaintiffs wrote that President Joe Biden "doubled down on [his] predecessor's cruel asylum restrictions" despite having campaigned on "a promise to restore our asylum system."
"The agencies claim the rule merely provides consequences for asylum-seekers circumventing lawful pathways," reads the lawsuit. "But seeking asylum is a lawful pathway protected by our laws regardless of how one enters the country."
Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America's Voice, welcomed the ruling and its "strong message to the Biden administration that it must adhere to the law."
But she emphasized that even if Tigar's decision is upheld on appeal, "it does not fix the broken asylum system."
"Only Congress can fully fix the broken asylum and immigration system, giving people the option of coming with visas for family or work and legalizing those who already work here," said Cárdenas. "Congress must deliver the modernization we need."
"In the meantime," she added, "we call on the administration to use the tools it has, including dedicating more resources to the border to address asylum backlogs, while using parole programs, [Temporary Protected Status], and the refugee admissions process to stabilize the system and provide additional pathways for those in need of protection."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden’s New Border Plan Is Already Putting Asylum Seekers at Risk
The restrictions undermine President Biden’s promise to end inhumane Trump-era border policies and make a shambles of the right to seek asylum.
Jun 29, 2023
The Biden administration recently announced that its border plan is “working as intended.” It was referring to President Joe Biden’s restrictive new policies that took effect with the ending of Title 42, the Covid-19 emergency health regulation that allowed the U.S. to turn away adult asylum seekers at the southern border.
What the administration failed to acknowledge is that these restrictions undermine President Biden’s promise to end inhumane Trump-era border policies. Instead he is making a shambles of the right to seek asylum.
Seeking asylum is a legal act under U.S. and international law, whether or not the asylum seeker enters at an official border crossing. Yet the new restrictions block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. and deny asylum eligibility to many who have credible fear of persecution but are unable to surmount the barriers the rule creates.
In the encampment we visited, approximately 2,500 people sheltered in shabby tents without running water, cooking, or bathing facilities, awaiting entry to the U.S.
I recently traveled with a group of attorneys to the Rio Grande Valley, where attorneys from the South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) led us to a border encampment in Matamoros, Mexico, and to the Port Isabel Detention Center (PIDC) near Brownsville. What we saw and heard was reminiscent of the suffering under Trump administration policies that prevented migrants fleeing persecution from entering and seeking asylum in the U.S.
With the rescission of Title 42, individuals should again be permitted, under current law, to seek asylum in the U.S. Those who enter the U.S. and express fear of persecution have the right to an interview with an asylum officer. If they demonstrate credible fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, political opinion, or other protected ground, they should be permitted to apply for asylum. Those granted asylum are eligible for a green card and may petition to bring family to the U.S.
The Biden administration, however, severely limited these rights when it implemented the post-Title 42 Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Final Rule. Asylum-seekers crossing the southern border without authorization must now apply for and be denied asylum in a country through which they traveled or make an appointment to present themselves at a port of entry using the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) app known as CBP One. But it is nearly impossible to satisfy these requirements, as most transit countries do not have functioning asylum systems, and the CBP One app is riddled with malfunctions and delays.
Humanitarian organizations in Matamoros confirmed that only noncitizens with CBP One app appointments or a documented, grave medical condition are permitted to cross and present themselves at the Brownsville Port of Entry. This leaves migrants with valid asylum claims languishing in Matamoros in squalid and dangerous conditions. In the encampment we visited, approximately 2,500 people sheltered in shabby tents without running water, cooking, or bathing facilities, awaiting entry to the U.S.
Those who cross between official ports of entry without meeting one of the new conditions are presumed ineligible for asylum. Instead, they must meet a higher standard of proving reasonable fear of return and are only eligible for limited protection in the U.S. Those exempted from this presumed ineligibility include unaccompanied minors, trafficking victims, and people facing medical emergencies or imminent threat of death.
Most of the detained migrants we interviewed at PIDC had tried unsuccessfully to use the CBP One app. They had spotty access to internet, could not upload photos, were booted from the app, or were repeatedly advised that appointments were unavailable.
CBP processing centers are not designed for long-term detention, yet several migrants we interviewed were held in overcrowded, unhealthy CBP facilities for up to 12 days.
Several received transit passes as they entered countries along their journeys but had no realistic opportunities to apply for asylum. Others were kidnapped while waiting to cross. Captors tortured them while family members listened by cellphone and held them hostage until their families paid a ransom. After their release, fearing further violence, they crossed the Rio Grande, legally sought asylum, and were taken into CBP custody.
CBP processing centers are not designed for long-term detention, yet several migrants we interviewed were held in overcrowded, unhealthy CBP facilities for up to 12 days. They were then transferred to detention centers where some waited weeks for credible fear decisions. Few, if any, had lawyers to help them maneuver the complicated new asylum restrictions.
The American Immigration Council recently issued a report offering humane alternatives for border processing. They recommend, for example, expanding CBP’s capacity at ports of entry and establishing regional processing centers where “federal agencies are co-located with nongovernmental organizations to carry out processing, coordinate release, and provide effective case management for newly arrived migrants.”
The Department of Homeland Security said it will “make adjustments” to the new procedures if needed. However, small adjustments will not repair the damage done to the asylum process.
The Biden administration should rescind its rule and keep its promise to create humane border policies. The American Immigration Council has provided a roadmap—the Biden administration just needs to follow it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Government Is Illegal—Not Asylum-Seeking
As of Thursday, the Biden administration will implement an Asylum Ban that breaks national and international law by limiting who can seek asylum.
May 11, 2023
Title 42 ends Thursday, but the U.S.-led war on refugees will continue, as the policies that are replacing Title 42 are in many ways, much worse.
For the past three years, the U.S. has used the pandemic as a pretext to implement Title 42 and violate basic human rights. Under the measure, it has deported or detained 6.9 million mostly Latin American and Caribbean migrants at its southern border and denied refugees their right to claim asylum. Now, Title 8 will apply, and the U.S. government will maintain its harmful relationship with Latin America, while also violating various federal and international laws.
As of Thursday, the U.S. will implement an Asylum Ban that breaks the law by limiting who can seek asylum. There will be fast screening of migrants, and those who have passed through another country without first seeking protection there (inevitable for all land migrants except Mexicans) will not be eligible for asylum, even if the countries they pass through are not safe for them. All ineligible people will be deported.
The Asylum Ban operates under a guilty unless proven innocent logic—applicants are assumed to be ineligible if they have traveled through other countries and if they didn’t apply through the CBP One app.
Unlike Title 42, now people who try to enter the U.S. irregularly will be punished with a five-year prohibition from the U.S. Irregularity includes anyone who doesn’t go to the border at the time of their appointment, assigned to them by a bug-ridden CBP One app.
There are also plans to open processing centers, initially in Guatemala and Colombia, and to be run by the International Organization for Migration and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee. The centers should help people apply for visas, but they must then fly to the U.S.—something most refugees and poor people can not do.
The U.S. government has said it will double the number of refugees from Latin America that it accepts, but it was already admitting a very low number (a maximum of 15,000 a month), and it will only accept people who apply through the app, processing centers, or embassies, who have eligible sponsors in the U.S., and arrive by plane. Mexico, meanwhile, has to accept deportees.
Ultimately, the changes mean that the mass deportations will continue. The screening interviews, instead of facilitating due process, involve interviewing exhausted people, many of whom have faced torture or kidnappings, over the phone while they are detained. They don’t typically know their legal rights and, if they fail to demonstrate that they fear persecution during these screenings, will be deported.
The Asylum Ban operates under a guilty unless proven innocent logic—applicants are assumed to be ineligible if they have traveled through other countries and if they didn’t apply through the CBP One app. But people without smartphones, those who can’t read, those with a visual disability, and those who speak other languages such as Indigenous languages aren’t able to use the app. The app is also very buggy, and error messages are in English. And while the U.S. is planning to expand the times when people can use the app to make appointments, migrants often spend weeks trying to get an appointment and fail due to technical errors and the very limited slots available.
Mexicans then spend weeks or months waiting in the dangerous country they are fleeing for an appointment, and most migrants of all origins are waiting while homeless in northern border cities, unable to work, and facing the dangers of kidnapping, rape, extortion, or worse from organized criminals.
For example, Human Rights Watch narrates one story of a family that couldn’t get an appointment with the app near where they were, and had to travel 1,200 miles to their assigned port of entry. On the way they were kidnapped, tortured, and extorted by a gang. Their abductors blindfolded them after 20 days and took them to the border, threatening to kill them if they didn’t cross. Border Patrol captured the family and told them they had crossed illegally, as they didn’t cross at the time and place of their app appointment, then expelled them back to the dangers of Mexico.
U.S. Migration Policy Is Criminal
“Let me be clear, our border is not open and will not be open after May 11,” said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. His declaration and the Asylum Ban violate various U.S. and international laws that stipulate that any person should be able to request asylum, no matter their identity, country of origin, or method for entering the country.
Specifically, prohibiting people from seeking asylum based on their access to the limited app appointments or the countries they have traveled through violates Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Geneva Convention, and the 1951 Refugee Convention. The convention also prohibits penalties against people seeking refugee protection based on their manner of entering a country (i.e. the five-year ban the U.S. will now enforce), and Section 1158 of Title 8 of the United States Code stipulates that people can apply for asylum, no matter how they enter the U.S. Finally, the 1967 Protocol, which broadens the 1951 Convention, also prohibits placing conditions on access to asylum procedures.
Trump tried to implement similar asylum bans, and they were repeatedly struck down by U.S. federal courts as unlawful.
Trump tried to implement similar asylum bans, and they were repeatedly struck down by U.S. federal courts as unlawful. Further, effectively blocking most asylum requests to people migrating by land is race- and class-based discrimination which particularly harms Latin Americans, people from the Caribbean, Indigenous people, and people of African descent.
The application app in of itself is illegal, because it functions as a type of metering. By having limited appointment slots, migrants, including Mexicans, are denied due process rights, and a U.S. federal judge ruled such metering as illegal. International standards for protecting asylum seekers are also being violated, as Mexican refugees have to stay in the country they are fleeing while they wait.
Finally, the U.S. government is also increasing the likelihood of refoulement (returning someone to likely danger), which is a serious human rights violation.
Borders Are a Plundering Mechanism
Though unstated, the Biden administration, and those before it, have clear reasons for such policies. They send soldiers to the border and criminalize and deport migrants because a closed border serves to enforce inequality and poverty. It keeps Latin American wages down, maintains a supply of informal, undocumented, low-paid workers in the U.S., while also ensuring U.S. companies have access to cheap labor they can use on the other side of the border.
From car manufacturers to clothing and parts manufacturers, there are thousands of U.S. companies in Mexico and Central America taking advantage of cheaper rent, water, electricity, and labor, then sending the goods and profits to the U.S.
A closed border is a policy of regional segregation and economic imperialism.
A closed border is a policy of regional segregation and economic imperialism. Globally, the U.S. claims hero status, while in reality it is cowardly rebuffing its humane responsibility to help those in need, who are fleeing violence, climate disaster, and extreme poverty that was in a large part caused by U.S. interventionism, militarization (under the guise of the “War on Drugs”), exploitation, and unfair trade agreements.
The U.S. imposes a nonreciprocal and toxic relationship with its neighbors, where its citizens can come here to Mexico and Latin America freely, but not vice versa. Instead, we should demand and build a society with genuine freedom of movement and no discrimination, and that systemises care as a way of operating, rather than these delusional forts of fear.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Biden Is 'Finishing Trump's Job' With New Attack on Asylum-Seekers
"We will sue as we did under Trump," said an ACLU attorney. "The core illegality is the same."
May 10, 2023
U.S. President Joe Biden's newly unveiled plan to crack down on asylum-seekers, which his administration is expected to implement following the scheduled expiration of the pandemic-era Title 42 policy on Thursday, is being denounced for entrenching a bipartisan abandonment of international human rights law.
"This asylum 'plan' from the Biden administration is a disaster," Sawyer Hackett, an adviser to Rep. Julian Castro (D-Texas), wrote Wednesday on social media. "It slams the door on our commitment to asylum as an internationally recognized principle. In many ways, it's worse than Title 42 and anything Trump proposed around asylum."
Title 42 was enacted by former President Donald Trump early in the Covid-19 pandemic at the behest of his notorious white nationalist adviser, Stephen Miller. Despite widespread condemnation from human rights experts, who accused Biden of following Trump in weaponizing the rarely used public health statute to swiftly deport immigrants, the current president has failed to fundamentally break from his predecessor's policy of fast-tracking the expulsion of asylum-seekers.
"Forcing persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems is as ludicrous as it is life-threatening. This ban is Title 42 in sheep's clothing, and it will have a devastating impact."
The Biden administration initially defended Title 42 and continued to expand the policy after its attempts to end it were thwarted by Trump-appointed judges. With Title 42 scheduled to expire alongside the Covid-19 public health emergency on May 11, the White House in February proposed a set of anti-asylum measures consistent with those it inherited.
CBS News on Tuesday obtained internal documents showing that the new restrictions had been finalized and hundreds of U.S. asylum officers trained on how to enforce them. The policy was formally published on Wednesday.
"The long-awaited end of Title 42 should be a cause for celebration and relief; and we welcome the end of a policy that was based in cruelty and persecution," Danilo Zak, associate director of policy and advocacy at Church World Service, said in a statement. "However, the immediate implementation of an asylum ban on the same day it is set to end represents an unwillingness to move away from punitive, fear-based border policy and towards humane solutions that would effectively and compassionately manage the border."
"This ban and other proposed border policy changes will place further restrictions on asylum, while increasing detention, deportation, and militarization at the border," said Zak. "It will embrace disorder, returning at-risk migrants to danger, and do nothing to address the challenges we face. With every step forward, the Biden administration is choosing to immediately take two steps back; the legacy being created is one of negligence and harm. One that directly undermines the values of so many Americans."
As CBS News reported:
Under the rule, migrants who cross the southern border without authorization will be presumed to be ineligible for asylum if they can't prove they previously requested protection in a third country. In practice, it will disqualify most non-Mexican migrants who enter the U.S. between ports of entry from asylum.
Migrants who secure an appointment to enter the U.S. under a mobile app-powered system will not be barred from asylum under the policy. The rule will also not apply to unaccompanied children.
According to internal training documents, only migrants with "exceptionally compelling circumstances" will be able to overcome the rule's asylum bar. Those include migrants with an "acute medical emergency," those who face an "imminent and extreme threat" in Mexico, and victims of "a severe form of human trafficking."
In order to avoid being deported and banished from the U.S. for five years, those who don't qualify for any exemption will need to pass interviews with heightened standards designed to lead to more rejections than traditional "credible fear" interviews, according to the training materials.
The White House's plan to ramp up the expedited removal of migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border marks "a dramatic shift in asylum policy," the outlet noted. It "also represents a major pivot by President Biden, a Democrat who campaigned on restoring access to the U.S. asylum system after numerous Trump administration rules made it more difficult for migrants to secure refuge on American soil. In fact, the regulation published Wednesday resembles a Trump-era policy struck down in federal court that Mr. Biden decried in 2020."
Biden's new policy is expected to be challenged in federal court. "We will sue as we did under Trump," Lee Gelernt, the ACLU's top immigration lawyer, told CBS News on Tuesday. "The core illegality is the same."
But the outlet noted that "if upheld, the Biden administration's rule will cement a growing bipartisan rejection of the asylum laws that Congress enacted in 1980 to conform with international treaties designed to prevent nations from turning away refugees to places where they could be persecuted, as the U.S. did to some Jews fleeing Nazi Germany."
In a statement, Jonathan Blazer, ACLU's director of border strategies, accused Biden of ushering in "a new period of immense suffering for people already enduring violence and persecution."
Biden "has closed off the possibility of asylum in the United States to the majority of people seeking safety—in contradiction with our nation’s laws and values," said Blazer. "In doing so, he is finishing Trump's job rather than fulfilling his own campaign promises. This is a somber day for our country and for refugees in desperate search of safety, but the fight is far from over."
"We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule betrays core American values and denies protection to those most in need of it."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, lamented that "the Biden administration's pivot back to the Trumpian policies is complete."
"These new asylum restrictions mirror in large part one of the Trump administration's harshest anti-asylum policies, the 2019 asylum transit ban—which two separate federal courts struck down as unlawful," Reichlin-Melnick wrote on social media. "That's not to say that there's no difference between the Biden and Trump administrations. Under Trump, the transit ban applied to everyone. Under Biden, migrants who win an appointment lottery through [the] CBP One app lottery will be exempt from the new 'rebuttable presumption.'"
However, a policy briefing released this week by Amnesty International warns that the mandatory use of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) mobile app as the sole means for people to enter the U.S. to seek asylum is an explicit violation of international human rights law.
"The mandatory use of CBP One conditions entry and access to asylum on appearing at a port of entry with a prior appointment, which is only feasible for some people," Erika Guevara-Rosas, Americas director at Amnesty International, said in a statement. "While technological innovations could potentially provide for safe transit and more orderly border processes, programs like CBP One cannot be used as the exclusive manner of entry into the United States to seek international protection."
“The way in which the CBP One application works is deeply problematic," Guevara-Rosas continued. "Asylum-seekers are forced to install the application on their mobile devices, which enables U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect data about their location by 'pinging' their phones. The U.S. must ensure that asylum seekers have due process rights regarding refugee status determination procedures and that they are not returned to places where they may be at risk of harm."
Reichlin-Melnick acknowledged that "as the Biden administration adopts new versions of the harsh policies of its predecessor, it has kept 'alternate pathways' available, including expanding the capacity of the ports of entry and creating significant new parole programs." Nevertheless, he added, "those paths aren't available to many migrants."
Lee Williams, chief programs officer at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, sharply rebuked Biden in a statement.
"At a time of unprecedented global displacement, the Biden administration has elected to defy decades of humanitarian protections enshrined in U.S. law and international agreements," said Williams. "Forcing persecuted people to first seek protection in countries with no functioning asylum systems is as ludicrous as it is life-threatening. This ban is Title 42 in sheep's clothing, and it will have a devastating impact on children and families already uprooted by unimaginable violence, persecution, poverty, and climate disaster."
"We welcome steps taken to expand pathways to protection from home countries, such as humanitarian parole programs, family reunification processes, and increased refugee admissions, but under no circumstances should they replace asylum as the last best hope for families in desperate need of safety," Williams continued. "Though the administration's stick is an immediate ban, its carrot requires time to set up processing facilities in Latin America and vet applicants—time that many asylum-seeking families in imminent danger simply do not have."
"We urge the Biden administration to reverse course before this misguided rule betrays core American values and denies protection to those most in need of it," Williams added. "There will be challenges along the way, but the U.S. has the resources and compassion to welcome people with dignity. Generations of Americans have opened their doors and their hearts to these newcomers, and their presence will continue to make our country, our economy, and our communities stronger."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Biden Rule Denounced as 'Trump's Asylum Ban Under a Different Name'
"Whether it's President Trump or President Biden, these asylum bans are illegal. The proposed rule should not move forward."
Feb 22, 2023
The Biden administration on Tuesday proposed a rule that immigrant rights groups, civil liberties organizations, and some Democratic lawmakers condemned as an illegal attack on asylum-seekers that resembles an inhumane policy pursued by former President Donald Trump.
The new rule, unveiled by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, would assume that "certain noncitizens who enter the United States without documents sufficient for lawful admission are ineligible for asylum."
"The proposed rule would encourage migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States, or otherwise to seek asylum or other protection in countries through which they travel," the administration's summary of the rule states, outlining conditions that broadly mirror a Trump-era "transit ban" that was ultimately blocked in federal court.
Those who don't meet the more strict asylum eligibility requirements under the proposal would be subject to quick deportation.
Biden administration officials said they expect the rule to take effect in May after a 30-day public comment period and once a Trump-era mass expulsion policy known as Title 42 is terminated. (GOP-led states are trying to keep Title 42 in place.)
Advocacy groups, including the ACLU, signaled that they're prepared to take legal action to ensure the Biden policy suffers the same fate as Trump's "transit ban."
"Congress designed our asylum laws to ensure that everyone escaping persecution has a chance to seek safety in the U.S., regardless of how they must flee danger or enter the country. This asylum ban is, at its core, Trump's asylum ban under a different name," said Anu Joshi, deputy director of the National Political Advocacy Department at the ACLU.
"It will leave the most vulnerable people in much the same position as Trump's policy did—at risk and unfairly denied the protection of asylum for reasons that have nothing to do with their need for refuge," Joshi added. "We can't overstate the human suffering that will result."
Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, told NBC News that if the Biden administration's rule "does what we expect it to do—unlawfully deprive access to asylum based on the manner of entry and/or transit route—it would be invalid like the similar Trump administration rules that were found unlawful by federal courts."
The proposed rule was expected after the Biden administration announced a significant expansion of Title 42 last month, even as it claimed to be preparing for the policy's end. Part of those preparations, administration officials said at the time, was rulemaking on the asylum process.
Douglas Rivlin, director of communication for America's Voice, said Tuesday that it is "hard to reconcile" Biden's campaign pledge to "turn the page on the cruelty and chaos of the Trump era" with the new asylum rule.
"Just because this news had been anticipated doesn't make it any less devastating," Rivlin said. "We should be finding ways to fix and fully resource our asylum process, not devising ways to prevent people seeking safety from accessing the asylum process under our laws."
Biden is also facing backlash from members of his own party over the rule, which Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) slammed as a "re-implementation of the Trump-era policy that will ban people from requesting asylum, worsen conditions at the border, and return vulnerable people back to danger."
Andrea Flores, a former White House official, lamented Tuesday that "rather than make progress on addressing regional mass migration, the Biden administration has resurrected a transit ban that normalizes the white nationalist belief that asylum-seekers from certain countries are less deserving of humanitarian protections."
"For an administration that strives to uphold racial equity," Flores added, "it is deeply disheartening to watch them normalize the dehumanizing narrative that Black and brown migrants at the southern border deserve to be punished for seeking out a legal pathway that Congress provided for them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy