The president faces mounting pressure from both Republicans and progressives as a humanitarian crisis escalates and immigration continues to be a crucial voter concern.
On Thursday, the Biden administration announced proposed alterations to asylum criteria aimed at expediting certain deportations. These changes are intended to bolster security measures and alleviate the backlog of cases, particularly in light of the unprecedented influx of migrants at the US-Mexico border.
According to Biden himself, the proposed changes are acknowledged to be narrow in scope, impacting only a “limited” segment of individuals with serious criminal convictions or potential national security threats.
This cautious approach underscores Joe Biden’s attempt to navigate the complexities of an election year dominated by immigration concerns, aiming to appease both ends of the political spectrum.
Republicans have held Biden responsible for the surge in migrants at the border, while their presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, has advocated for an aggressive deportation strategy that could potentially disregard legal safeguards for immigrants.
In recent months, the Republican Party escalated its efforts, attempting to impeach Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, alleging his failure to enforce immigration laws. They capitalized on the tragic death of Georgia college student Laken Riley, advocating for mass arrests and detention camps, and perpetuating fears of immigrant men as threats, particularly after the arrest of Jose Antonio Ibarra, an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, in connection with her murder.
Pressure to tighten border security has also mounted from centrist and swing-state Democrats, even as progressives, immigration rights activists, and Latino leaders have urged the president to prioritize the protection of immigrants within the US and enhance conditions for asylum seekers at the border.
This proposal marks the president’s most recent effort to tackle an issue that stands as one of his major vulnerabilities in the election. Presently, asylum officers assess an asylum seeker’s background and any criminal allegations against them during the interview phase of the process. With the newly suggested standards, border officers could reject certain asylum seekers within days or even hours of their arrival at the border, during an initial assessment for their “credible fear” of persecution.
The proposed rule, unveiled on Thursday, is estimated by the administration to only impact around 2 to 3% of asylum seekers, based on historical data. However, it seeks to address a problem that appears to be largely nonexistent. Over decades, data has consistently shown that immigrants, including asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, are significantly less likely to be incarcerated or convicted of a crime compared to native-born individuals. Recent investigations have further failed to establish any correlation between undocumented immigrants and violent or property crimes.
Additionally, migrants who voluntarily surrender to the United States Border Patrol to seek asylum already face extensive surveillance measures, including ankle monitors, cellphone apps, and check-in procedures, while awaiting the processing of their cases through immigration courts, which can sometimes take years.
Faisal Al-Juburi, the chief external affairs officer at Raíces, a Texas-based immigrant support and advocacy group, expressed concerns about the proposed rule, stating, “There is already a nearly impossibly high standard when it comes to asylum adjudications, and eligibility for asylum. I think this stands to exacerbate further what is a manufactured crisis at the end of the day.”
Laurence Benenson, the vice-president of policy and advocacy at the National Immigration Forum, a centrist advocacy group, emphasized that the effectiveness of the proposed rule will depend on its implementation. He noted, “There are some real concerns about whether people who have legitimate claims are just going to be turned back.”
Another concern raised by the proposed rules is that they may not significantly alleviate the humanitarian crisis at the US-Mexico border.
The administration acknowledges this limitation. Mayorkas stated in a statement, “We will continue to take action, but fundamentally it is only Congress that can fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system.”
A staggering number of individuals escaping war, political instability, violence, poverty, and natural disasters are arriving at the US border in search of refuge. They often endure days in harsh open-air camps before being attended to at overwhelmed processing centers. Subsequently, they face months or even years of waiting for their cases to be resolved in backlogged immigration courts.
Advocates for asylum seekers and other immigrants have persistently urged lawmakers to allocate additional resources. These include hiring more officials trained to evaluate asylum claims, increasing the number of immigration judges and court staff, and providing migrants with legal representation. Such measures aim to expedite the processing of cases and ensure fair treatment for those seeking refuge.
Despite Republicans’ portrayal of Biden as lenient on immigration, the president has overseen the resumption of border-wall construction and the implementation of unprecedented electronic monitoring of asylum seekers. Although he ended some of Trump’s most restrictive border policies, his administration has sought to enact new, stricter rules barring asylum seekers who failed to seek protection in another country they traveled through. Additionally, Biden is exploring executive actions to limit asylum at the border.
Al-Juburi dismissed the administration’s assertion that the proposed changes would only impact a small number of ineligible asylum seekers. He argued that it would empower border officers without specialized training to hastily judge migrants who lack legal representation.
“If you have any kind of criminal background stemming from persecution by a foreign government – perhaps even due to your opposition to that government – you could slip through the cracks and be turned away.”
