The significant rise in unauthorized immigration that has occurred during President Joe Biden’s administration has been acknowledged as a threat to his re-election. He is aware that the majority of voters disapprove of the hike. The same goes for governors and mayors who have faced an expensive and frequently chaotic scenario, like the one in Denver that was covered in a recent New York Times article.
Biden and his advisors have already decided on a plan to lessen their exposure to politics. They intend to remind voters that a bipartisan package that would have improved border security was thwarted by congressional Republicans this month. Despite the fact that many Republicans supported the bill’s objectives, they defeated it at Donald Trump’s request, primarily to avoid resolving an issue that has negatively impacted Biden’s political standing.
It makes sense for Biden to highlight the choice made by the Republicans during his campaign, considering how obviously politicized it was. However, I would be shocked if he could completely remove his weakness on immigration by just denouncing the intransigence of the Republicans.
Why? After all, Biden is the president, and even in the absence of new law, a president retains substantial power to influence immigration policy.
Although he hasn’t strictly enforced immigration law, Biden has been assertive in his use of this power. In the initial months of his tenure, he increased asylum and put a stop to deportations. Additionally, it expanded the use of parole, sometimes known as a temporary stay, which is restricted by law to “only in specific circumstances.” More than 300,000 people were admitted by Biden last year via parole.
These measures, along with Biden’s hospitable remarks during the 2020 election, played a part in the rise in immigration. (John Judis and David Ignatius provided additional details in a recent Times op-ed and Washington Post piece, respectively.) The adjustments gave migrants indications that their chances of being admitted to and remaining in the United States had improved.
Many migrants are “confident that once they arrive when they get to the U.S., they would be permitted to stay,” as my colleague Miriam Jordan has written. Indefinitely. And they’re not entirely incorrect.”
Officials from the Biden administration have occasionally attempted to minimize or even deny that their policies were a factor in the increase in immigration. Officials’ recent actions, meanwhile, imply that they might not even accept their own denials.
The administration’s consideration of actions that would undo some of the initial easing of immigration regulations is the most obvious indication. If someone enters the country illegally to begin with, one of these proposed laws would restrict their capacity to seek for asylum instead of following the existing procedures. In order to defend the policy, The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which gives the president the authority to halt immigration for anyone deemed “prejudicial to the interests of the United States,” is probably what Biden would bring up.
Regardless of Biden’s choice, I advise you to take three situations into account:
PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY:
First, historical evidence indicates that a president’s immigration policies have sufficient weight to be noteworthy.
After Biden assumed office, immigration rose, although it has since decreased as a result of his more moderate immigration restrictions. As an illustration, the number of individuals breaking the law by entering the southern border illegally fell by half in January following the Biden administration’s successful efforts to convince Mexico to tighten its enforcement of its own immigration laws in December.
Such policy adjustments affect migration both directly and indirectly. The less migrants attempt to enter and remain in the United States, the more likely they are to feel that they will not be successful.
LEGAL OBSTACLES:
Second, supporters of a more liberal immigration policy will probably sue Biden in court if he takes any action that restricts immigration. Many of these supporters think that even if it is illegal for them to enter, the United States, being a wealthy nation, has a moral duty to welcome immigrants from less developed nations.
Although the results of these legal challenges are unknown, there is reason to think that Biden’s actions will stand, at least in part. The Supreme Court declared that the 1952 statute “oozes respect to the president in every phrase” when it upheld a portion of Trump’s immigration restrictions in 2018.
The initial revelation of the regulations could slow migration even if the judges prohibit some of them since it would indicate to the public that the Biden administration is taking border security more seriously.
REPULICAN ASSERTIONS:
Third, Republican assertions that Biden is free to handle the border anyway he pleases should still raise doubts in your mind. The speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, has made this suggestion multiple times. In actuality, a president’s considerable latitude in determining immigration policy does not equate to total liberty.
Congress’s policies are important, too. Among other things, the bipartisan package that Republicans opposed would have funded the employment of immigration judges and border agents, which could have helped to lessen the massive backlog of cases. With the implementation of these remedies, the government would have had more time to assess asylum claims and deny applications from candidates with weak legal bases. More migrants will stay in the United States unhindered for months or years as their cases plod through the legal system if more resources aren’t allocated to them.
In summary, Biden have the ability to lower the exceptionally high migration rates of the previous three years. It is also true that its response has been sluggish. It’s also true that Parliament will need to adopt legislation in order to find a long-term solution to the nation’s immigration issues.
