Congresswoman Comments On Border
President Biden’s announcement of a new asylum policy for migrants crossing the southern border, set to activate when encounters exceed a certain threshold, has sparked immediate backlash from both sides of the political spectrum. While Republicans have labeled it a political "stunt," some Democrats accuse him of betraying the values of asylum seekers.
The new policy, introduced through a presidential proclamation, will temporarily suspend the entry of non-citizens across the southern border once the average number of border encounters exceeds 2,500 a day over a seven-day period. This suspension will remain in effect until the average drops below 1,500 daily encounters over a similar span. The administration claims this measure will streamline the process for immigration officers to quickly remove individuals without a legal basis to remain in the U.S.
There are exceptions to the rule. It does not apply to visa holders, unaccompanied children, victims of severe trafficking, or those facing acute medical emergencies or imminent threats to life or safety. Additionally, migrants using the CBP One app to seek entry through official ports of entry—limited to about 1,500 migrants daily—are also exempt.
Democrat Jasmine Crockett admits President Trump successfully secured the border: "The numbers were abysmal under Trump" pic.twitter.com/qa89giZqmh
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 5, 2024
"Today, I'm moving past Republican obstruction and using executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border," Biden said in a speech on Tuesday, criticizing Republicans for their failure to secure the border.
However, this policy has not been well-received by either party. Republican leaders such as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise have denounced the move as a "desperate political stunt" aimed at stabilizing Biden’s declining poll numbers ahead of the November election.
"From his first day in office, Biden has worked to implement a failed open border agenda which created this historic humanitarian and national security catastrophe. This Executive action does nothing to end parole abuses or catch-and-release," they stated, also criticizing the lack of new resources for border patrol and the failure to reimplement the successful Remain in Mexico policy from the Trump administration.
House Homeland Security Committee Chair Mark Green criticized Biden for effectively legitimizing high levels of illegal immigration. Stephen Miller, a senior official in the Trump administration, condemned the order as "pro-invasion, pro-illegal migration," arguing that it would still result in many migrants being released into the country.
Democrats, too, have expressed strong objections. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, described the move as a "dangerous step in the wrong direction." She likened the use of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s section 212(f) to Trump’s controversial policies, including the Muslim Ban.
Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee, like Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, expressed concern over the impact on vulnerable individuals seeking safety in the U.S., despite acknowledging Biden's actions in response to Republican obstruction.
In the Senate, Democrats such as Sen. Alex Padilla criticized Biden for undermining American values and failing to provide refuge to those fleeing persecution. Padilla argued that the asylum ban would not solve border challenges and would endanger people with legitimate asylum claims.
Republican Senators like John Cornyn and John Kennedy echoed their House colleagues' criticisms, accusing Biden of insincerity and political cynicism. Cornyn questioned why Biden waited so long to take action if he was serious about border security, while Kennedy described the move as "one of the most cynical things" he had ever seen a politician attempt.
As the debate continues, Biden’s new asylum policy stands at the center of a contentious political landscape, with both sides of the aisle questioning its effectiveness and underlying motivations.