Staff Reports
In a bid to maintain control over the immigration situation at the border, the Biden administration has called on an appeals court to uphold new asylum restrictions. They argue that halting these restrictions would cause significant disruptions. The government is urging a panel of judges, consisting of two Clinton-appointed judges and one Trump-appointed judge, to overturn a July ruling that had previously attempted to block the new restrictions. These restrictions have remained in place during the appeal process.
While the judges have yet to make a ruling, Senate Republicans are simultaneously pushing for extensive changes to asylum eligibility in response to President Biden’s request for military aid to Ukraine and Israel. It is important to note that similar measures were blocked under the Trump administration. However, the Biden administration contends that its approach is different as it is accompanied by new legal pathways for entry into the country. The administration also claims that exceptions have been created. Nevertheless, advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigrant Justice Center, argue that these policies are merely recycled versions of those implemented by the Trump administration and are in violation of U.S. laws regarding asylum seekers.
Biden administration warns of major disruption at border if judges halt asylum rule https://t.co/2M40HE430p
— KSAT 12 (@ksatnews) November 8, 2023
One noteworthy development is the introduction of a mobile app that allows asylum-seekers to schedule appointments at official border crossings with Mexico. Furthermore, the Biden administration has allowed up to 30,000 asylum-seekers per month from several countries, including Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, to apply online and pursue asylum upon arrival at an airport with a financial sponsor.
According to Brian Boynton, a Justice Department attorney, these new pathways present a significant difference from the policies of the Trump administration. Boynton also highlighted that 12% of asylum-seekers subject to the new restrictions through September were able to avoid them by providing evidence of exceptional circumstances, such as acute medical emergencies, imminent threats to life or safety, or being victims of human trafficking. However, ACLU attorney Spencer Amdur argued that these exceptions were minuscule and that the majority of asylum-seekers were still required to enter through an official point of entry.
The new restrictions did have an impact on illegal border crossings from Mexico, which dropped from record daily highs in May. However, this decline was short-lived, with arrests in September almost reaching the all-time monthly high from December 2022. Additionally, more than 2 million arrests occurred during the government’s fiscal year that ended on September 30th. Blas Nuñez-Neto, assistant Homeland Security secretary for border and immigration policy, emphasized the critical nature of these asylum restrictions in a separate court filing. The figures show that approval rates for initial asylum screenings significantly decreased after the new restrictions were implemented.
Justice Department attorney Brian Boynton, in concluding his arguments, urged the judges to maintain the policy even if they ruled against the administration, suggesting that they were prepared to escalate the case to the Supreme Court if necessary.
