Liberals and conservatives are suing to remove Biden’s new border policy — for very different reasons

Immigration advocates have said President Biden’s new border policy is one of drastic restrictions that would “effectively eliminate the right to asylum” for most immigrants. But Texas Republican officials said the opposite is true, warning that the regulation would lead to an “influx of immigrants” with unverified asylum applications.

Both groups were describing the same policy of the Biden administration in separate lawsuits, but the reasons for challenging them were very different.

Released earlier this month, Biden Management rule Immigrants are denied asylum if they do not first seek asylum in a third country before reaching the southern border of the United States. Those who cross the border illegally and fail to prove they deserve an exemption from the law face speedy deportation and removal for five years from the United States.

The base is the focus of management broader effort To reduce illegal border crossings, which have recently reached record levels. It punishes those who enter the country without permission, while expanding immigrants’ opportunities to come to the United States legally.

In the lawsuit they filed earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups said the Biden rule, just like the two Trump administrations. Asylum restrictions Banned in federal court, it violates laws passed by Congress in 1980 to protect refugees fleeing persecution.

in separate suit This week, Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton also argued the regulation was illegal, but focused his criticism on a provision directing immigrants to wait in Mexico until they secure an appointment via a phone app to enter the United States at an official border. Transit. Those who enter the United States with one of the approximately 1,000 appointments distributed each day are not excluded from the right to asylum.

The lawsuits by our fellow strangers, both of whom seek to block asylum restrictions entirely, could jeopardize Mr. Biden’s strategy for running immigration to the US southern border, where immigrants have been coming in greater numbers and from more countries than ever before amid. Mass displacement in Latin America and the Caribbean. Federal judges in Oakland and Del Rio, Texas, could rule on those cases later this year, setting up a high-stakes legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.

Migrant crossings increase at the southern border with the end of Title 42 policy
Migrants seeking asylum in the United States, who are stuck in a temporary camp between the border walls between the United States and Mexico, look through the border wall on May 13, 2023 in San Diego, California.

/ Getty Images

But regardless of their legal and practical implications, the lawsuits illustrate the political sticking point at which the Biden administration finds itself regarding border policy.

Progressive advocates say Biden has been too tough on immigrants and relies too heavily on deterrence policies espoused by former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Republicans continue to argue that the current immigration crisis is one of Biden’s making, accusing his administration of lax enforcement of limits.

The lawsuits also highlight the dangers of federal immigration policy-making amid decades of congressional inaction on the issue. Like his predecessors, Mr. Biden has wielded his executive power broadly to enact key immigration policies, at the southern and interior borders. Like the unilateral changes made by his predecessors, Biden’s policy agenda has been challenged, and at times derailed, by lawsuits.

Theresa Cardinal Brown, a former US immigration official under former President George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “It’s a whip effect on politics.”

A lawsuit in Texas, for example, prevented the Obama administration from granting work permits and guarantees of removal to unauthorized immigrants whose children were US citizens or permanent residents. The Trump administration’s many asylum restrictions, segregation of immigrants, and efforts to reduce legal immigration have faced dozens of often successful legal challenges from Democratic-led states and advocacy groups like the ACLU.

And that trend has continued, if not intensified, under Biden. During his first two years in office, Texas and other Republican-led states persuaded judges to block 100-day moratoriums on most deportations, rules limiting arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and an end to the Trump-era policy known as “Stay in Mexico” that Asylum seekers have been forced to wait for their court dates outside the United States

Republican state officials have extended the termination of Title 42 public health law — which allowed border agents to expel immigrants without an asylum check — by a year. The pandemic rule only expired this month because the end of the national COVID-19 emergency overruled legal challenges.

Mexico and the United States border
Migrants wait to cross the banks of the Rio Grande River into the United States, as seen from Matamoros, Tamaulopa state, Mexico on May 9, 2023.

Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images

Recently, a federal judge granted Florida’s request to halt a Biden administration policy of releasing immigrants that was intended to alleviate overcrowding inside Border Patrol facilities. Another federal judge in Texas is also expected to rule soon on a request by Republican-led states to force the Biden administration to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for 600,000 “Dreamers” immigrants.

Other issues remain unresolved, including Texas’ attempt to lock down the popular programme Up to 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans with financial sponsors in the United States are allowed to come to the country legally each month.

Cardinal Brown, now a senior adviser to the Center for Bipartisan Policy, said Congress’ failure or reluctance to change immigration law in any significant way since the 1990s has led states and groups that disagree with the administration in power to stage political battles in federal court. System.

“The main reason we see these private lawsuits by states is because of the difference of political and political opinion,” Cardinal Brown said. “The judiciary is not supposed to be a policy-making body, and we are basically asking it to make policies.”

In a recent affidavit, Blas Núñez Neto, the Department of Homeland Security’s top immigration and border policy official, said the lawsuits “clearly show the extent of the fundamental collapse of our immigration system.”

Núñez-Neto argued that the administration is using “innovative” enforcement measures to deter illegal border entry, which dropped sharply after Title 42 lapsed on May 11. When asked by CBS News if the administration has a plan b or c for managing border crossings if lawsuits prevail, Núñez Neto turned to Congress.

“At the end of the day, we are fully aware that there is no permanent solution here that does not involve the US Congress,” he said.

(Visited 5 times, 1 visits today)

Related posts