On Tuesday, President Biden announced a series of executive actions to limit asylum claims at the southern border. These measures include a temporary suspension of migrant entry when daily border encounters surpass 2,500 over seven days, with the suspension remaining in effect until encounters drop below 1,500 for a similar duration. In addition to this suspension, the new rule imposes stricter standards for initial asylum screenings, intending to curb the influx of asylum seekers.
Some Democrats want the American people to feel secure with Joe Biden in charge-
However, the executive actions contain numerous exceptions, which have sparked significant criticism from both sides of the political spectrum. The exceptions include allowances for legal immigrants, unaccompanied children, trafficking victims, those who schedule appointments via the CBP One app, and individuals whose entry is deemed necessary due to urgent humanitarian or law enforcement considerations. Approximately 1,500 individuals enter daily through the CBP One app appointments alone. These broad exceptions have led critics, particularly Republicans, to argue that the rule is too lenient and could be easily circumvented.
Republicans have voiced strong concerns that these exceptions undermine the effectiveness of the new measures. They argue that the exceptions are so extensive that they essentially nullify the intended restrictions. For instance, the House Homeland Security Committee remarked that the exceptions are “broad enough to drive a truck through,” suggesting that the policy fails to present a significant deterrent to illegal immigration. Former Trump administration official Stephen Miller echoed these sentiments, particularly criticizing the exception for unaccompanied minors, which he believes could facilitate trafficking and exploitation.
In addition to the asylum rule changes, the Biden administration is altering the expedited removal process. Previously, border agents individually asked migrants if they feared persecution in their home countries. Under the new guidance, agents will instead look for verbal and non-verbal signs of fear, such as explicit statements, self-harm, or unusual behavior, before referring migrants to asylum officers. This change aims to streamline the process but has been met with skepticism. Critics argue that it merely shifts the responsibility without significantly altering the outcome, as agents must still address claims of fear, potentially leading to similar results.
Conservative critics, such as RJ Hauman of the Heritage Foundation, argue that these new guidelines will not result in substantial change. They believe that traffickers and cartels will quickly adapt, instructing migrants to exhibit fear signs immediately upon arrest. The concern is that the policy adjustments while appearing stringent on paper, may not effectively reduce illegal immigration or asylum claims in practice. These critiques highlight the ongoing debate over border security and immigration policy, illustrating the complexities and challenges in balancing enforcement with humanitarian considerations.
If you would like to support our journalism- please visit our sponsors: