Dear Editor,
On Friday, May 12, marked the first day following the lifting of Title 42, a pandemic-era policy initiated in March 2020 that allowed for limiting border crossings for public health reasons.
The Trump administration’s interpretation allowed for the immediate expulsion of undocumented migrants, primarily from Central and South America, even if they were seeking asylum. The Biden administration had, until now, continued to follow a similar interpretation. The federal government had used Title 42 to turn away approximately 2.5 million asylum seekers over the past three years.
Now, to deal with immigration, the government returns to a section of the U.S. Code known as Title 8. The administration has plans to expand its expedited removal process of migrants that are unable to establish a legal basis for approved asylum paired with additional deterrence measures softened by expanded legal pathways.
The policy is to bar those from applying for asylum if they cross the border illegally or fail to first apply for safe harbor in another country. To become exempt from this, migrants must establish an appointment with Customs and Border Protection through the use of One App.
Asylum law creates a right to claim asylum if the claimant has a credible fear of facing violence. In recent years, news reports have documented hundreds of thousands of individuals and families fleeing crime, persecution, and economic and social repression within their homelands to make perilous journeys north to the U.S. even as they are exploited by ruthless human traffickers and drug cartel members.
Although Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas repeatedly reports, “Our border is not open,” media outlets show daily images of thousands of migrants crossing our southern border where Homeland Security asylum officers perform a high-rate process of cursory vetting.
Those same migrants are subsequently shown fending for themselves on the streets of U.S. border towns or being bussed to distant locations.
The administration’s suggestion that there is no border crisis runs counter to an engagement of bipartisan efforts to improve our border security and effectively address issues of illegal immigration. Our legislators would do better by acknowledging the humanitarian challenges at our southern border, recognizing that any resolution will not be without pain, and trying to balance the legal aspects of immigration law with compassion. This may require a change in how immigration and nationality law is applied.
The U.S. as a sovereign nation has the right to govern its defined territory. With that said, for a start, we need to secure the border. We need more detention accommodations to house those that cross, more asylum immigration judges for adjudication, visas for migrant workers, and a path for legal status for undocumented migrants.
Somewhat optimistically, just this past week, Secure the Border Act 2023, aka HR 2, was introduced in the House of Representatives.
This border bill, which addresses immigration and border security issues while imposing limits to asylum eligibility, passed a House vote and will move on to the Senate. In the meantime, we watch and wait as the number of asylum seekers to the U.S. will only surge after the ending of Title 42 and we are not sufficiently prepared.
Peter Wibell, Rutledge