Current:Home > ScamsPresident Joe Biden faces first lawsuit over new asylum crackdown at the border -ValueCore
President Joe Biden faces first lawsuit over new asylum crackdown at the border
View
Date:2025-04-16 18:13:18
WASHINGTON (AP) — A coalition of immigrant advocacy groups sued the Biden administration on Wednesday over President Joe Biden’s recent directive that effectively halts asylum claims at the southern border, saying it differs little from a similar move during the Trump administration that was blocked by the courts.
The lawsuit — filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES — is the first test of the legality of Biden’s sweeping crackdown on the border, which came after months of internal White House deliberations and is designed in part to deflect political attacks against the president on his handling of immigration.
“By enacting an asylum ban that is legally indistinguishable from the Trump ban we successfully blocked, we were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU.
The order Biden issued last week would limit asylum processing once encounters with migrants between ports of entry reach 2,500 per day. It went into effect immediately because the latest figures were far higher, at about 4,000 daily.
The restrictions would be in effect until two weeks after the daily encounter numbers are at or below 1,500 per day between ports of entry, under a seven-day average. But it’s far from clear when the numbers would dip that low; the last time was in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The order went into effect June 5, and Biden administration officials have said they expected record levels of deportations.
But advocates argue that suspending asylum for migrants who don’t arrive at a designated port of entry — which the Biden administration is trying to push migrants to do —- violates existing federal immigration law, among other concerns.
Biden invoked the same legal authority used by the Trump administration for its asylum ban, which comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows a president to limit entries for certain migrants if their entry is deemed “detrimental” to the national interest.
Biden has repeatedly criticized Trump’s immigration policies as he campaigns, and his administration argues that his directive is different because it includes several exemptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and those with severe medical emergencies would not be subject to the limits.
“We stand by the legality of what we have done,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said on ABC’s “This Week” before the lawsuit was filed, saying he anticipated legal challenges. “We stand by the value proposition.”
Under Biden’s directive, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.
Meanwhile, those who express fear or an intention to seek asylum will be screened by a U.S. asylum officer but at a higher standard than currently used. If they pass the screening, they can pursue more limited forms of humanitarian protection, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which prohibits returning people to a country where they’re likely to face torture.
veryGood! (4425)
Related
- FACT FOCUS: Inspector general’s Jan. 6 report misrepresented as proof of FBI setup
- What stores are open on Easter Sunday 2024? See Walmart, Target, Costco hours
- Minnesota Legislature will return from Easter break with plenty of bills still in the pipeline
- Georgia bill aimed at requiring law enforcement to heed immigration requests heads to governor
- Meet first time Grammy nominee Charley Crockett
- Is apple juice good for you? 'Applejuiceification' is the internet's latest controversy.
- Audit finds inadequate state oversight in Vermont’s largest fraud case
- Moscow attack fuels concern over global ISIS-K threat growing under the Taliban in Afghanistan
- Will the 'Yellowstone' finale be the last episode? What we know about Season 6, spinoffs
- 'Princess Peach: Showtime!': Stylish, fun Nintendo game lets Peach sparkle in spotlight
Ranking
- Jamie Foxx gets stitches after a glass is thrown at him during dinner in Beverly Hills
- Remains of 19-year-old Virginia sailor killed in Pearl Harbor attack identified
- Former NYPD officer acquitted of murder in shooting of childhood friend during confrontation
- LSU star and Baltimore native Angel Reese on bridge collapse: 'I'm praying for Baltimore'
- What do we know about the mysterious drones reported flying over New Jersey?
- Maine governor proposes budget revisions to fund housing and child care before April adjournment
- 2 police officers shot in Nevada city. SWAT team surrounds home where suspect reportedly holed up
- US judge in Nevada hands wild horse advocates rare victory in ruling on mustang management plans
Recommendation
Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
Remains of 19-year-old Virginia sailor killed in Pearl Harbor attack identified
Tiki torches sold at BJ's recalled after reports of burn injuries
The Moscow concert massacre was a major security blunder. What’s behind that failure?
'Survivor' 47 finale, part one recap: 2 players were sent home. Who's left in the game?
3 Pennsylvania men have convictions overturned after decades behind bars in woman’s 1997 killing
Riley Strain Honored at Funeral Service
Poison reports for dogs surge 200% at Easter: What to know to keep dogs, other pets safe