We explore the new asylum rule of the Biden administration and its comparison with Trump’s immigration policies. This analysis sheds light on the current and future landscape of immigration in the United States.
Biden’s new asylum rule has stirred controversy over its similarity to Trump’s policies. In a recent hearing, the Justice Department defended the uniqueness of the rule, which critics claim resembles a rehash of Trump’s policies.
Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni defended himself by claiming that “2023 is not 2019”. This rule makes it significantly harder for migrants arriving directly at the southern border of the United States to obtain asylum unless they use a government application to schedule an appointment or have already sought protection in a country through which they passed on their way to the United States.
This policy harkens back to the Trump era and its attempt to limit asylum, an idea that federal judge Jon S. Tigar rejected twice. Now, he finds himself faced with the same dilemma with Biden’s rule, implemented following the expiration of Title 42, a COVID-19-related restriction that limited asylum applications.
Despite the administration’s arguments that the rule encourages migrants to use legal routes into the United States and prevents chaos at the border, immigrant rights groups criticize that it is illegal and endangers migrants.
From the start of the hearing, Tigar expressed skepticism. He referred to his previous rulings on Trump’s restrictions and suggested that 2023 could be a year for sequels.
Reuveni stood firm that Biden’s rule is different from Trump’s, with exceptions granted in 9% of cases. He dismissed criticisms of the government’s app, CBP One, and other methods for providing legal routes for migrants. He assured that there have been real advances in countries like Mexico, Belize, and Costa Rica for migrants to apply for asylum.
Judge Tigar’s verdict, regardless of what he decides, will certainly be appealed. Tigar estimates that he will issue his ruling in a week or less. Although the hearing ended with Reuveni’s anticipation of a possible ruling against the government, the final determination can bring a significant change in asylum policies at the southern border of the United States.
In a post-Trump era, the Biden administration is navigating the challenges of immigration policy, seeking its own identity. However, its recent asylum rule has encountered opposition from critics who compare it with the restrictive policies of the Trump era. During a recent hearing, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni defended the originality of the new rule.
The main point of contention is the difficulty this rule imposes for migrants to obtain asylum. This is only possible if they use a government application to schedule an appointment or if they have already attempted to seek protection in another country during their journey to the United States. This policy seems an echo of the restrictive measures of the Trump era, generating an uncomfortable air of familiarity.
Federal Judge Jon S. Tigar, who twice rejected Trump’s attempts to limit asylum, faces a similar dilemma with Biden’s rule. Biden’s asylum rule came into effect after the expiration of Title 42, a COVID-19-associated restriction that limited asylum applications at the southern border.
The Biden administration maintains that this rule aims to encourage the use of legal channels by migrants, thus avoiding border chaos. However, immigrant rights groups strongly criticize it, arguing that it is not only illegal but also puts migrants at risk.
From the beginning of the hearing, Judge Tigar has shown his skepticism. Referring to his previous rulings on Trump’s asylum restrictions, he suggested that 2023 might be a year for sequels.
Reuveni, however, insists that Biden’s rule significantly differs from Trump’s attempts to limit asylum. He emphasizes that in 9% of cases exceptions are granted. He also defended the government’s app, CBP One, and other methods that seek to provide legal routes for migrants. According to Reuveni, there have been significant advances in countries like Mexico, Belize, and Costa Rica that allow migrants to apply for asylum.
Expectation grows as Judge Tigar’s decision approaches. Regardless of what he decides, his verdict will surely be appealed. Tigar estimates that he will issue his ruling in a week or less, and if this ruling is against the government, it will respect the government’s request that such a decision does not take effect for 14 days to allow for appeal.
As the hearing progressed, Reuveni anticipated a possible ruling against the government. But, regardless of the ruling, this is a decision that could have a considerable impact on US immigration policy.
Biden’s new asylum rule marks a milestone in the history of US immigration policy. Although it resembles the policies of the Trump era, its implementation and future results will determine whether this rule represents a true change in the nation’s immigration policy or simply a sequel to previous policies.
Meanwhile, both immigrant rights advocates and government officials are closely watching, awaiting the outcome of this legal battle that has the potential to redefine the landscape of asylum applications at the southern border of the United States. Regardless of what the final decision is, it is undeniable that the way this issue is handled will have profound repercussions on the lives of thousands of migrants and on future US immigration policies.
