Following an asylum ban implemented by the Biden administration in June, officials are now considering even stricter measures to help maintain lower levels of illegal crossings into the United States.
Publications including the New York Times and Reuters have reported on private discussions on measures that would strengthen the existing ban, an action that critics have asserted is illegal.
Asylum Ban
In early June, Biden announced a strict ban that attempts to stop migrants who cross the southern border from “unlawfully receiving asylum.”
“President Biden issued a proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the Southern border into the United States unlawfully. This proclamation is accompanied by an interim final rule from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that restricts asylum for those noncitizens,” said a White House statement.
Blaming Republicans
In the statement, the Biden administration asserted that its new measures were a result of inaction in Congress which was the fault of Republicans.
“Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades,” the White House said.
Not Permanent
However, while Biden made this move to attempt to ban asylum seekers, the White House emphasized it would be a temporary measure to get things under control.
“These actions are not permanent. They will be discontinued when the number of migrants who cross the border between ports of entry is low enough for America’s system to safely and effectively manage border operations,” said the White House.
Ban Threshold
The Biden administration established a threshold that would keep the asylum ban in place based on the number of migrants that crossed the border.
For the ban to be relinquished, crossings would have to fall past a 1,500-per-day average in the course of one week, with a two-week waiting period to ensure this crossing drop is maintained.
Not Reached
While the ban by the Biden administration has been in effect for several months, this threshold has not currently been met.
However, In July, US Border Patrol apprehended 1,820 migrants per day, which is far below a previous record set last December of 10,800.
Considering Stricter Measures
Reuters reported this week that Department of Homeland Security sources they spoke to said there are now internal discussions considering extending the time crossings must remain under the threshold.
Officials are considering lengthening the waiting period to several weeks, which could make it much harder for the ban to eventually be lifted.
More Migrants Necessary
As part of this increased waiting period under consideration, another change officials are considering is updating the way migrant crossings are calculated to include more migrants.
The current number calculation does not include crossings by undocumented children.
Considering Comments
Luis Miranda, a DHS spokesperson, asserted that public comments are still being considered in relation to the asylum rule.
“[Officals] are continuing to process comments received relating to the Interim Final Rule published on June 7, 2024,” said Miranda. “We cannot comment on the content of a rule that is not yet final nor issued.”
Election Context
This consideration from Biden officials comes as the general election in November is only weeks away.
It’s possible that if new measures are implemented, it would allow the ban to remain in place all the way to the election, even if the previous threshold and time period requirements are met.
Top Issue
The issue of immigration remains a top issue as voters are set to soon head to the polls and decide the balance of power in the nation’s capital.
A Gallup poll in July found that a majority 55% of Americans want to see levels of immigration lowered, a high point since 58% thought the same in 2001.
Patently Illegal
ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt is part of a lawsuit filed against Biden’s order in June and reacted negatively to news of a possible further change.
“The rule is patently illegal and was supposed to be temporary but these contemplated changes would further cement the illegality,” Gelernt said.
