Last Tuesday, in an interview with Univision’s Enrique Acevedo, President Joe Biden again said he’s considering issuing an executive order to ban asylum at the border. It’s an idea that Biden has floated before as the presidential election season slogs on, and after the bipartisan border bill meltdown in Congress. “We’re examining whether or not I have that power. Some are suggesting that I should just go ahead and try it,” Biden told Acevedo. “And if I get shut down by the court, I get shut down by the court.”
If Biden were to do such a thing, he would rely on Section 212 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives a president the authority to suspend entry or place restrictions on noncitizens.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because Trump tried this several times during his presidency, most notably with the xenophobic Muslim ban. None of them were successful, and they only injected more chaos into an already beleaguered immigration system. So why is Biden proposing this idea now? The Border Chronicle spoke with immigration expert Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director at the American Immigration Council, about Biden’s proposal and what an asylum ban would mean for asylum seekers and border communities.
Biden is floating the idea of issuing an asylum ban. How will this impact people seeking asylum at the border? And can the president actually, you know, just shut down the border?
So I’ll start with the second question. The answer is no. Though there are some authorities that get you somewhere close to it, like Title 42. But it’s important to understand the distinction between the legalistic aspect of issuing an order that further bans crossing the border and actually, effectively shutting down the border.
The best example of issuing an order that I would point to is President Trump’s 212 restriction from November 2018, through February 2021, which suspended the entry of all migrants crossing the border illegally. So we already know what it looks like when a president invokes Section 212 (f) of the INA to suspend the entry of migrants. What it looks like is nothing, because nothing happened. And that is because it is already a violation of immigration law to cross the border without inspection. And so adding another reason, you know why that’s not allowed, doesn’t have any practical impact on people who simply walk across the border or wade through the river or climb over a wall. Because the important question is not whether a person is committing an unlawful act by crossing. The important question is, what can the U.S. government do to respond once a person is on U.S. soil? This is why Section 212 (f) is not a good tool for addressing irregular migration.
The other question is, how does that affect people seeking asylum? Well, not very much. We saw this with the Trump administration, in order to carry out their 212 ban. They had to do two things: They had to issue the proclamation suspending the entry of migrants. And then separately, they passed a regulation saying, we are going to ban asylum to anyone who crosses the border in violation of the proclamation. And it’s that regulation that got struck down as unlawful with a court in California, and then the Ninth Circuit saying and affirming that what that amounted to was a total ban on asylum for people who enter the country illegally, which is simply not permissible, because the INA says people, no matter how they arrive in the United States, may apply for asylum.
Photo courtesy of Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Share
I think people often forget about this, right? I mean, the law says that you can arrive anywhere at the border and ask for asylum.
You can arrive anywhere, and you can have any status. You can be documented, undocumented, you can enter legally or illegally. The key issue is whether or not you are physically present in the United States. And in that case, then they are allowed to apply for asylum. Now, the Biden administration has imposed an asylum restriction that does target people primarily by how they enter the United States. It is currently on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, and the legality of it is not entirely clear. This is the circumvention of lawful pathways rule from last May. The Biden administration basically argued that it wasn’t a total ban on asylum, because it wasn’t technically based on the manner of entry, so it didn’t violate the INA. I think that was a weak argument, though.
If Biden were to implement the ban, would it impact legal migration?
Probably not at all. This would be a restriction, like the Trump restriction, that would apply only to migrants who cross the border between ports of entry, not those who go to ports of entry. So it would probably have no impact at all on legal migration. The crucial thing to understand is that, as a practical matter, even if they do manage to get an asylum restriction in place, which passes court muster, actually carrying out that restriction on migrants at the border is a very different story. And as we are seeing today, with the circumvention-of-lawful-pathways rule, even if you have banned asylum to nearly everybody crossing the border illegally, that does not actually mean that nearly everyone who crosses the border illegally is restricted from seeking asylum.
What impact could the asylum ban have on border communities? Do you think we’d see a buildup of people on the Mexican side and in camps just sort of waiting and trying to figure out what to do?
Anytime a new policy goes into effect, there’s a wait-and-see period. The Biden administration is already maximizing credible fear interviews. So it wouldn’t have a major change on how people are processed at the border. Other than that, the few 15 percent who were even put through credible fear, they would get denied. But even then, not all of them would get denied because, crucially, an asylum ban is discretionary. It’s just an asylum ban, and there’s more to humanitarian protection than just asylum that migrants can potentially invoke to avoid rapid removal or deportation proceedings. There’s withholding of removal, which is a form of asylum that’s harder to win and offers fewer benefits. And there’s protection under the Convention against Torture. So even today, people who are not eligible for asylum are still managing to pass their fear screenings because they could demonstrate eligibility for withholding or eligibility for protection under the Convention against Torture.
So, realistically speaking, having this asylum ban applied to 100 percent could mean only a few hundred people more a month being ordered removed. Not a huge shift. But for those people, obviously a very, very dramatic change. The question then is, how does the Biden administration talk about this? Does the ban discourage some people from showing up? You know if they falsely believe that this is a major shift? And, of course, how does Mexico respond?
These are the questions that are more important, because with Section 212 (f), I don’t see a way for the president to re-create something like Title 42, where people are simply expelled back across the border without being able to seek asylum. Even the Trump administration acknowledged that that’s not something that they could do with Section 212 (f).
Share
What strategy do you think Biden’s using here by floating this idea? Is it purely for political reasons? Because it’s an election year?
I don’t know. I think there’s a reason that they haven’t done anything yet. And that reason is likely to do with the fact that the lawyers have probably explained to Biden what happened when Trump tried and how unsuccessful that was.
Has the narrative around immigration and the border become so removed from reality that it’s just not helpful at this point?
Yes, I do think so. People want an easy solution, you know, build the wall, what have you, and are not acknowledging that this is an issue that the United States has been facing for, in its modern form, for 15 years. If you go back further, 100 years, really, ever since we first made it illegal to cross the border, we’ve been dealing with the challenges of how do you enforce that law? If you go back to the late 19th century, when Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, the United States created a Bureau of Immigration where they had an entire division whose job it was to try to stop Chinese people coming in from Mexico and Canada. And then, in the early 20th century, the biggest issue at the southern border was Mexican migrants crossing the border without permission. We have a nearly 2,000-mile land border on the south and a 3,000-mile land border on the north. That is a lot of territory to patrol even in a modern world with technology. And the United States has been through a period of high migration for 40 out of the last 50 years. For 40 years it was Mexicans, not entirely, of course, and there were Central Americans during the death squad years of the 1980s, who came to the United States for safety.
But the real shift that’s happened in the last three years has been people from further abroad. And it is just a challenging issue in a world that is more interconnected and hypermobile than at any point in human history. And we have to acknowledge that complexity when we talk about how to address this issue.
I think when people are talking about, you know, just shutting down the border, they forget about the billions in trade and citizens from both sides who are crossing the border every day.
Right, exactly. Oftentimes, people don’t even think about that, you know, most people don’t know that about the half a million people who enter the United States every single day at the southern border. That’s at least 16 million entries a month. And that’s people legally crossing back and forth for school, for work, for commerce, or tourism. So when people say, “Let’s shut down the border,” they mean to migrants, but they’re not thinking about the rest of it. And you have to go back to this question of, is that something the United States can do or wants to do? Let’s say you build a Berlin Wall with, you know, gun towers, and Trump’s moat filled with alligators and shoot migrants in the legs. That probably would deter some people. But then are you a country that is murdering people for trying to seek a better life? Do we want to be that kind of country?
So here’s a really tough question. Do you have any solutions?
An overwhelming majority of people who would like to come to the United States have no legal pathway to do so. Alternate pathway strategies are key. This puts a focus on those who haven’t yet made the decision to leave. I think it’s important to put that in that framework. Because once people have already left, they have sold their house, they’ve abandoned the lease, they, you know, liquidated a lot of their savings, they may have sent a child to a parent or an aunt or uncle. All of which means, at that point, that simply going back becomes much harder.
We also have to address the root causes for why people leave their home countries, which is the hardest to do, of course. This would require the United States to reckon with its own record of foreign policy in Latin America, which is something a lot of politicians do not want to do. Alternate pathways are a good middle ground there, because you can give people an opportunity to come to the United States temporarily and legally without breaking any laws, starving the smugglers of resources. And making it easier for people to get here without falling into the hands of bad actors.
Once people are at the border, though, it’s a different story. There have to be better options for people to cross legally at ports of entry. People still need the opportunity to seek asylum. But there should also be an enforcement component for people who don’t fall within our asylum laws. Right now, the issue is that the system can’t easily distinguish at the border between those who have slam dunk asylum claims from those who just want to come here for a better life. And that is because for years Congress has failed to provide enough resources to the asylum system, humanitarian protection, systems screening—all of that is grievously underfunded and has been for decades.
Given the scale of migration we see today, the system has buckled under its own weight. So, we have to build the system back up and allow it to function. And that means delivering a yes in a reasonable time and delivering a no in a reasonable time regarding asylum claims. You know, it shouldn’t take seven years.
And it’s important to keep reminding people that these issues didn’t just start in 2020 with the Biden administration.
This is not a new issue. And it’s one that requires us to think outside of a partisan lens. This is about U.S. government capacity, the underlying legal structures, and U.S. foreign policy across the region, which has gone on for generations. The underlying legal authorities haven’t changed in decades. And the external circumstances have changed dramatically.
The ability of migrants to get to the border is easier than it has ever been. Flights are cheaper, and people have cell phones and Google Translate. In the past, if you wanted to get to the border, you would need to speak some Spanish, you would need to know someone. Now you can find all the information online. You can find it circulating on WhatsApp, Telegram or TikTok. And once you’re in a foreign country, you know, if you’re an African migrant who speaks French when you come through Mexico, you can use Google Translate to talk to other migrants and find out what they know. And so moving and migrating across the world is easier now than it has ever been. And that’s not necessarily a genie that we can put back in the bottle. And I think people need to acknowledge that and start thinking more broadly about what that means for the modern world.
Support independent journalism from the U.S.-Mexico border. Become a paid subscriber today for just $6 a month or $60 a year.
Subscribed
Thank you for subscribing and supporting The Border Chronicle. Please share this post with your friends and help us become sustainable. We appreciate your support!
Share
Subscribed
As horrifying and clear-cut as their stories seemed, the siblings faced a bewildering array of legal challenges. Their notices to appear lacked any hearing date, leaving them confused about when to appear. Immigration judges frequently order people removed for not appearing, despite the