Latest In

Breaking News

As Illegal Border Crossings Fall, A Judge Rules Against Biden's Asylum Policy

A judge rules against biden's asylum policy, which has caused a significant decline in crossings at the US-Mexico border in recent months. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee in Oakland, Calif., dismissed the limits as "arbitrary and capricious," but stayed his decision for 14 days to allow the Biden administration to appeal.

Author:Darren Mcpherson
Reviewer:Camilo Wood
Jul 27, 2023
10.6K Shares
160.8K Views
A judge rules against Biden's asylum policy, which has caused a significant decline in crossings at the US-Mexico border in recent months.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee in Oakland, Calif., dismissed the limits as "arbitrary and capricious," but stayed his decision for 14 days to allow the Biden administration to appeal.
Tigar stopped a similar proposal a few years ago, the Trump administration's so-called transit ban, joking during last week's hearing that he heard "2023 was going to be a big year for sequels."
The judge's 35-page judgment is the latest legal stumbling block for the Biden administration's immigration policy, which has faced numerous challenges from both political parties.
The officer escorted three men inside the police van
The officer escorted three men inside the police van
Tigar's decision jeopardizes the administration's toughest deterrence strategy to date, and it comes at a time when illegal border crossings are at their lowest since President Joe Biden's first full month in office.
A Department of Justice spokesperson said in a statement.
The Justice Department disagrees with the district court’s ruling today in the East Bay case and intends to appeal the decision and seek a stay pending appeal. We remain confident in our position that the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule is a lawful exercise of the broad authority granted by the immigration laws.- Department of Justice spokesperson
Tigar outlined a number of legal flaws with the Biden asylum rule, including its reliance on obsolete or incorrect assumptions and the fact that it was made accessible for public discussion for only 33 days.
The court expressed particular worry about the administration's intention to require most asylum seekers to show themselves at established ports of entry instead of claiming asylum after passing between border posts.
The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum.- Tigar
The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.
Biden's "asylum ban," announced in May and due to expire in two years, prevents some migrants from seeking humanitarian refuge if they cross the border illegally or fail to ask for safe harbor while transiting through another nation on their approach to the United States.

A judge blocks limits on asylum at US-Mexico border but gives Biden administration time to appeal

Certain migrants are exempt from the law, including unaccompanied minors, asylum seekers who enter through an authorized port of entry, and those fleeing "imminent" risk.
Immigrant rights advocates filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration shortly after the regulation was released this spring, following the expiration of Title 42 health orders, accusing the White House of following President Donald Trump's immigration playbook.
The plaintiffs applauded the verdict on Tuesday, pushing the Biden administration to quit its legal struggle to preserve the program.
Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center said in a statement.
The court’s ruling is welcome and expected, since the new policy simply rehashed prior rules that restricted access to asylum based on similar grounds, which courts already rejected. U.S. laws protect the rights of people fleeing persecution to come to this country and pursue asylum, full stop. We encourage the Biden administration to now direct its resources to uphold that right, rather than fighting to continue this unlawful and inhumane asylum ban.- Keren Zwick
Administration officials have denied that the two-year restriction is similar to Trump's transit ban, which similarly requires asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first nation they traversed on their way to the United States.
During last week's hearing, a Justice Department lawyer claimed that the current asylum limits are unique because they are linked with a variety of new legal avenues, and that asylum seekers can apply for an appointment using the CBP smartphone app.
The southern border has remained a difficult task for the president, and it is unlikely to go away as Republicans use the border as a base rallying point in 2024. The decision is also a setback for the Biden administration's post-Title 42 border strategy, though it is unclear how it would affect reducing border crossings.
While administration officials have attributed the decline in border crossings in part to the asylum rule, other immigration experts contend that the use of the CBP One app, voluntary departure, and the opening of legal avenues have played a larger impact in the drop in border crossings.
Jump to
Darren Mcpherson

Darren Mcpherson

Author
Darren Mcpherson brings over 9 years of experience in politics, business, investing, and banking to his writing. He holds degrees in Economics from Harvard University and Political Science from Stanford University, with certifications in Financial Management. Renowned for his insightful analyses and strategic awareness, Darren has contributed to reputable publications and served in advisory roles for influential entities. Outside the boardroom, Darren enjoys playing chess, collecting rare books, attending technology conferences, and mentoring young professionals. His dedication to excellence and understanding of global finance and governance make him a trusted and authoritative voice in his field.
Camilo Wood

Camilo Wood

Reviewer
Camilo Wood has over two decades of experience as a writer and journalist, specializing in finance and economics. With a degree in Economics and a background in financial research and analysis, Camilo brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to his writing. Throughout his career, Camilo has contributed to numerous publications, covering a wide range of topics such as global economic trends, investment strategies, and market analysis. His articles are recognized for their insightful analysis and clear explanations, making complex financial concepts accessible to readers. Camilo's experience includes working in roles related to financial reporting, analysis, and commentary, allowing him to provide readers with accurate and trustworthy information. His dedication to journalistic integrity and commitment to delivering high-quality content make him a trusted voice in the fields of finance and journalism.
Latest Articles
Popular Articles