Biden Establishes New Policy That Penalizes Those Who ‘Cross the Border Illegally’
It goes into effect in May and expires in two years.
Is Brandon doing something sane for once? I had to check if this was the Babylon Bee.
The Biden administration’s new policy will penalize migrants who enter America illegally. It goes into effect in May and expires in two years:
Consistent with America’s history as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, this proposed rule ensures enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, lawful pathways, and access to asylum and other forms of humanitarian relief for those who need it.
Under the proposed rule, individuals who circumvent available, established pathways to lawful migration – including those new processes announced on January 5 as well as a newly-available mechanism for migrants from any nationality to schedule a time and place to arrive at a port of entry – and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, would be subject to a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility in the United States unless they meet specified exceptions. Individuals who cannot establish a valid claim to protection under the standards set out in the proposed rule will be subject to prompt removal under Title 8 authorities, which carries a five-year bar to reentry. The proposed rule will be open to public comment in the Federal Register for 30 days. Additional detail can be found here.
The proposed rule is an emergency measure that is intended to respond to the elevated levels of encounters anticipated after the lifting of the Title 42 Order. As such, it is designed to be temporary in duration, applying to those who enter the United States at the Southwest land border for 24 months following the rule’s effective date and subsequent to the lifting of the Title 42 order.
The exceptions include:
- Faced an acute medical emergency;
- Faced an extreme and imminent threat to their life or safety, such as an imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, torture or murder; or
- Were a victim of a severe form of trafficking, as defined in 8 CFR § 214.11.
Activists and migrants have criticized Biden since the administration started discussing it in January.
ACLU senior attorney Lee Gelernt said the group would sue the administration if they go “through with the transit ban.”
At least 300 immigrant advocacy groups wrote, “The Biden administration must adjust course immediately and abandon the misguided pursuit of an asylum ban. We urge you not to issue the [proposal] on the asylum ban.”
Biden’s people told people to calm down because the policy does not ban asylum.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s all eyewash. Anything anybody does to cross the border will be declared “legal.”
Yeah, this has the feel of immediate obsolescence.
But they will only be put up indefinitely in 2 star hotels.
Perhaps Joe’s team of handlers includes people who were around when some guy named Bubba famously said, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. If you will be punished for doing something illegal, then whether or not you will be punished depends on the meaning of the word “illegal” is.
It was in a deposition, and that deposition is posted on Youtube! You too can watch as Clinton says that. It’s hilarious to watch that deposition, he’s such a different personality than his political personality.
Likewise the Bill Gates deposition about the IE vs. Netscape issue. I wonder if normal people can get away behaving that way in a deposition, or you have to be a big cheese. Anyone facing a deposition should definitely watch and see that this is how one behaves with the most expensive legal advice in the world.
And Trump? He just took the 5th to every question. I’ll learn from the experts. These are expert examples of how to behave in a deposition.
Since anybody who gets funnelled through a border checkpoint is processed and released by CBP, they’re all technically “legal” unless they miss a court date.
But they passed thru many safe countries without seeking asylum, so they’d be kicked out by the new rule.
BUT there is: “a newly-available mechanism for migrants from any nationality to schedule a time and place to arrive at a port of entry”
So it seems like it goes back to Remain-in-Mexico, but he’ll make the scheduling more reliable. He wants them here, but he wants them here legally and ideally he wants them to have green cards. He wants to make it better for them and to give us no grounds to send them back out.
But they passed thru many safe countries without seeking asylum, so they’d be kicked out by the new rule.
Except, the law already requires that.
Then what’s the problem? Maybe that nobody but the government has standing to sue on the issue?
That’s the reason our laws requiring preference for Americans over immigrants in employment aren’t enforced. Specifically, only the government has the right to sue (“cause of action”).
This is all moot. It is already illegal for anyone to cross the border without proper documentation now. Simply enforce current law and the “problem” is eliminated. This is designed to give Dems cover in the ’24 elections. They can then say they are doing something about “controlling undocumented immigration”, and the law will conveniently expire in June 2025. More liberal bullshit.
The Left has a rough headcount of the number needed to create one party rule and after that they will close the border. Look at organized crime getting into legit businesses with their money. A few endowments and gifts to PBS or NEA and they will be “clean”.
No new policy was needed except enforcing the law.
Just long enough to get him reelected, he hopes.
Basically useless policy change. It’d only applies to those that got away. The ones ‘caught’ will still count as legal since they will be processed as refugees. And for the got-aways, they have no resources to catch them anyway.
They can’t be processed as refugees if they didn’t apply for asylum in one of the countries they passed through. But maybe they can pass through a country that will refuse asylum, say Nicaragua (just guessing here, maybe Costa Rica, they’ll find out quickly), and apply there, then they can tick that box.
“and also fail to seek protection in a country through which they traveled on their way to the United States”
does this mean one country, or every country they passed through?
The law already requires them to get asylum in the “nearest” place that will take them.
Then they’re all ineligible unless they come in on a boat or plane directly. But does the existing law require them to have applied as they go through those countries? Or just that now they’re here, the closest country is here, and so they are told to apply here?
If the law is that they had to apply along the way, it’s obviously not being enforced, and the new one is the same and won’t be enforced either.
So, a law is not a law until there’s a policy that says obey the law?
“That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Ray.”
So, in other words, just claim the coyote brought you and you owe them money?
The exceptions include:
Faced an acute medical emergency;
Faced an extreme and imminent threat to their life or safety, such as an imminent threat of rape, kidnapping, torture or murder; or
Were a victim of a severe form of trafficking, as defined in 8 CFR § 214.11.
Crossing the border illegally? Where, from the US going to Mexico?
Maybe from Canada. It appears they’re soliciting CBP volunteers to go back up there to protect that non-existent border.
Biden Establishes New Policy That Penalizes Those Who ‘Cross the Border Illegally’
NEW? The law has continually sought to penalize those who cross illegally. His policy has been to not do so.
Also, it sure looks like that “new policy” is just a re-write of the law already in place.
What’s all this about laws? Under Imperial rule nothing is anything unless the god-king proclaims it.
Don’t expect anything positive out of this.
They will either…
1. Use it as an example of trying but failing to do something. Failure theater with a “they tried” pass from msm.
2. Selectively enforce it singling out ethnic groups that are likely to vote against socialism while ignoring those that can later get an easier path to citizenship because they check Dem boxes.
The old POS knows the damage has already been done. Wonder what brought this on all of a sudden.
US has signed a Treaty on this, in place for many years, along with many other countries – it requires that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they arrive in after “fleeing” their home country (assuming, wrongly in 99.9999% of cases that they are actual asylum seekers and not just economic migrants looking to bypass normal legal immigration laws).
Most of the current invasion of the US is originating in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatamala. Any person from any of those countries that has not applied for asylum, and gone through the entire process, in each country they passed through on their way to the US ought to be presumptively rejected when applying for asylum in the US.
We have a Treaty obligation requiring precisely that.
Give them the option of deportation back to their home country, or deportation to the first country they entered after leaving their home country. Under no circumstance should any asylum application in the US be entertained by any court.