Biden’s Border Policy Results in Fewer Migrants Released and Screened

President Biden’s recent decision to partially suspend asylum processing at the southern U.S. border has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of migrants released into the U.S. or screened for humanitarian protection, according to official government data.

In early June, President Biden, facing unprecedented levels of illegal crossings at the border, invoked wide-ranging executive powers to disqualify a majority of migrants from seeking asylum. This move streamlined the process for immigration officials to deport individuals entering the country unlawfully.

Since the implementation of Biden’s order, a downward trend in unauthorized border crossings has intensified. In July, the number of undocumented migrants crossing the southern border was recorded at 56,400—marking the lowest level in nearly four years, as per federal statistics. U.S. officials have noted that this decline can be attributed not only to Biden’s policy changes but also to rising summer temperatures and actions taken by Mexican authorities to curb migration.

Newly released figures indicate that Biden’s stringent measures represent the most severe approach to asylum by a Democratic president, leading to a fundamental shift in migrant processing at the U.S.-Mexico border.

One of the primary outcomes of Biden’s asylum restrictions has been a sharp drop in the number of migrants released by Border Patrol. Officials view this release practice as a incentive for migration, as individuals who are released can often remain in the U.S. for extended periods, regardless of the legitimacy of their asylum claims, due to an overwhelmed immigration court system.

In July, only 12,000 migrants were released by Border Patrol with notices to appear in immigration court, down significantly from 28,000 in June and 62,000 in May prior to the asylum changes. In contrast, December 2023 saw Border Patrol releasing 192,000 migrants amid a record surge in migration.

The decrease in releases coincides with a surge in the share of migrants placed in “expedited removal” proceedings—brief legal processes allowing officials to swiftly deport individuals who do not claim asylum or fail their asylum interviews.

In the months leading up to Biden’s decision, fewer than a quarter of all migrants apprehended by Border Patrol were processed for expedited removal, largely because the government lacked adequate resources to detain and interview every individual crossing the border unlawfully.

However, in July, nearly 28,000 of the 56,000 migrants apprehended were subjected to expedited removal proceedings, representing approximately 50% of those detained. This percentage has evolved from 43% in June and 25% in May.

According to data from the Department of Homeland Security, over 100,000 migrants have been deported or returned to their home countries since Biden’s partial ban came into effect.

The U.S. asylum system is structured to protect individuals fleeing persecution for specific reasons, such as political beliefs or religious affiliations. Economic hardship is not considered a basis for asylum.

Under current regulations, migrants placed in expedited removal proceedings who express a fear of persecution upon return may undergo a “credible fear” interview with an asylum officer. Those who pass can pursue asylum, while those who do not generally face immediate deportation.

Since the introduction of the asylum ban, far fewer migrants have been able to meet with U.S. asylum officers. This is due in part to new guidelines limiting the eligibility for asylum claims, alongside directives that cut back on questioning migrants about their fear of harm prior to deportation.

Rather than routinely screening for fear before removal, officials now only refer migrants for such screenings if they explicitly voice concerns about their safety. Accordingly, the percentage of expedited removal cases where migrants reported feeling persecuted has drastically fallen to 24%, a significant decrease from the prior average of 55%.

Before Biden’s order, U.S. asylum officers would receive between 17,000 to 20,000 screening referrals monthly. This number has plummeted to just 7,100 in June and dwindled further to 1,900 in July.

Even for those migrants who undergo officer interviews, the new rules have made it more challenging to secure asylum, as screenings are now limited to forms of humanitarian protection that do not pave the way for permanent legal status.

While Biden’s asylum order contains some exemptions, such as those for unaccompanied children or migrants with appointments made via a mobile application, its drastic measures reflect a shifting landscape for migrant rights in the U.S.

In July, over 38,000 migrants received processing appointments through the app known as CBP One. Those vetted can typically enter the U.S. to apply for work permits while their cases are pursued in court.

The Biden administration articulated that the asylum policy would cease if the daily average of illegal crossings drops to 1,500. Although it has approached this threshold, crossings appear to have stabilized in August, based on internal data.

Biden’s executive decision also faces potential legal challenges, with organizations like the ACLU asserting that these policies breach U.S. asylum law and echo certain provisions from a prior Trump administration policy that was invalidated in court.

The Justice Department has provided a legal defense against the ACLU claims, citing projections that illegal crossings could jump to between 3,400 and 6,900 daily if the asylum restrictions are overturned, contrasting significantly with the 1,800 average from July.

Tellingly, Texas, known for its opposition to Biden’s immigration policies, seeks to intervene in the lawsuit supporting the administration’s actions as “reasonable.” In a recent statement, a White House spokesperson attributed the notable decline in migrant crossings to the President’s “decisive actions.”

However, advocates for migrant rights argue that the implications of Biden’s policies are severe for those seeking protection. Christina Asencio from Human Rights First has highlighted instances of asylum seekers being expelled from the U.S. without an opportunity to present their cases.

Asencio questioned what “working” truly means in this context, asking whether it equates to depriving individuals of due process and access to mandated screenings or forcing them to stay in Mexico for extended periods.

Source: CBS News