A group of House Democrats on Tuesday pressed the Biden administration to reconsider its crackdown on asylum or expand legal representation for migrants navigating a new set of rules.
In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Ur Jaddou, Democrats said migrants are now forced to make life-changing legal decisions quickly and under duress, facing immediate and drastic consequences such as a minimum five-year bar to re-enter the United States.
“Allowing consideration of mandatory asylum bans during initial asylum screening interviews will force asylum seekers to present legally and factually complex arguments explaining the life-threatening dangers they are fleeing shortly after enduring a long and traumatic journey and while are being held in immigration detention and essentially without legal help,” wrote the lawmakers, led by Illinois Democratic Reps. Delia Ramirez and Jesús “Chuy” García.
Other co-signers include Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Biden-Harris 2024 Campaign Co-Chair Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), and Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) ), the top Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
Biden’s policy shift is contained in an interim final rule that makes migrants entering the country between ports of entry generally ineligible for asylum unless they meet certain exceptions, and in a presidential proclamation that limits when border officials screen migrants for asylum applications.
The move has opened a divide between Democrats, some of whom support the measure in part because it seeks to blunt Republican attacks on Biden’s border policies, and others who say it won’t work to reduce the numbers and will dissuade voters with ties to immigrants from supporting the Democrats.
“I think people are feeling pressure up and down at the polls. I think we haven’t done a good job on the messaging around immigration. But the other part of this is also valid, if we’re honest, is that we haven’t done anything on immigration reform, it’s been over 30 years,” Ramirez told The Hill.
This congressional inaction was cited by Mayorkas to justify the asylum crackdown, but his opponents on the left see the attack on asylum as a knee-jerk and aimless reaction.
“When things start to boil to the point that we get to this moment, instead of really looking for solutions, we try to be responsive, and Republicans have done an incredible job of publishing videos and sending influencers to the border, and using all the tactics possible to attack us,” said Ramirez.
“And instead of responding from values but also from solutions, we now react in such a way that it almost feels like we’re apologizing for the problem rather than actually addressing it, which is why we’re here now. That’s why we hear some Democrats say things I never would have imagined.”
The core of Biden’s border measure makes it more difficult for migrants to seek asylum in hopes of dissuading people from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border between ports of entry and instead making use of the limited avenues to seek asylum through a pre-established consultation with US authorities.
Migrants who decide to cross the border without prior authorization will not initially be assessed for asylum and, if they proactively submit an asylum claim, will be held to a higher standard than was the practice before the order.
Migrants who do not have the means to argue a case or who do not meet this higher standard will face a minimum five-year bar for reentry and possible criminal prosecution.
Democrats behind Tuesday’s letter criticized the administration for making a U-turn on mandatory bars.
“The Biden administration concluded just two years ago that including mandatory bars on credible fear exams would make the exams less efficient, undermine Congress’s intent for the expedited removal process to be expeditious and undermine procedural fairness, leading to substantial concerns with due process. ” they wrote.
The Biden administration says its implementation of bars is different from those it previously criticized, in part because it allows asylum officers discretion in applying the bars.
But lawmakers said the innovation opens up another set of issues, including the possibility of inappropriate profiling by asylum officers with that discretion.
Administration officials have defended the agents’ changed roles, including their ability to detect migrants who may be eligible for asylum but who don’t know how to plead their case.
“It’s really important to highlight that our agents and officers are trained in a variety of settings to really be astute observers of any type of behavior that is concerning or that indicates that an individual is experiencing some type of distress,” an administration official told reporters. in a phone call on Friday.
“So it’s something that our staff is well trained to do, to look for any type of behavior that indicates distress or not, and we’re very confident in our staff’s ability to take appropriate action when they see it.”
Ramirez cast doubt on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to provide adequate training and supervise its agents in such a politicized climate.
“It is based on the individual discretion of agents, who in some cases are very influenced by the political reality we find ourselves in right now,” she said.
“It’s absolutely crazy to me that this is what we’re using. And what will actually happen is that we will accelerate these legal decisions, and that will mean that we will increase unjust deportations. We will be violating people’s obligations under international law to be able to seek asylum in this country.”
Administration officials have insisted that the new asylum rules keep the United States in line with its international treaty obligations on asylum and refugee processing, but that claim has not yet been tested in court.
Immigration advocates – including the charter’s guarantors – have expressed doubts that the order is consistent with international obligations or domestic law.
“Further, the proposed rule provides no plan for how the administration would meet domestic and international obligations,” the lawmakers wrote.
An administration official said Friday that “the United States continues to adhere to its international obligations and commitments by vetting all individuals [who] expressing fear during their expedited removal processing or protection under withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture.”
While many supporters focused their legal criticism of the measure on the clear language of U.S. asylum law, which allows any foreign citizen on American soil to claim credible fear and trigger the first step of an asylum process, Democrats delved into the intent of the Congress to keep the bar low. for this first step.
“Further, the proposed rule focuses on increasing efficiency in asylum adjudication, but does not address its contradiction with Congress’s clear intent that the credible fear standard be ‘a low screening standard for admission into the asylum process. usual full asylum’ to minimize the risk of screening and eliminate noncitizens with potentially solid asylum claims,” they wrote.
Overall, Democrats pointed to a range of concerns about empowering U.S. border officials to make quick, meaningful decisions, and about potential asylees facing legal decisions with enormous consequences without advice.
“The proposed rule unfairly preempts highly specific and nuanced legal issues that deprive asylum seekers of the opportunity to present their best case with the guidance of an attorney. As such, this proposed rule cannot comply with existing due process and non-refoulement obligations and is contrary to Congressional intent, and we urge USCIS to rescind the proposed rule,” they wrote.
“Unless the administration dramatically expands access to legal counsel for asylum seekers in immigration custody and ensures comprehensive safeguards against sending asylum seekers with valid claims back to persecution, the rule cannot be implemented responsibly. ”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
