Enforcing Laws at the Border

Factual Questions
1

I’m looking for a factual answer to this.

There is an oft-repeated claim on the right that no border deal or reform is needed, they just need the current administration to enforce the laws we have. They make vague claims about the law requiring them to seek asylum in other countries they previously passed through, and they claim that not chasing down and deporting all illegal aliens is somehow a violation of some law they can’t identify.

So my factual question is whether there are indeed border & immigration laws on the books that, if followed, would actually make a difference at the border.

Mods, if this simply cannot be considered a FQ then so be it.

2

The problem is not laws, it’s money. There is an international treaty that obliges the USA to accept asylum seekers - those who are at risk of life and limb, etc. etc. for persecution in their home country. The problem is the backlog in the courts that determine who is a refugee. So an illegal migrant can be deported - once a court determines they are not qualified as a refugee…

The point has been made often - that asylum seekers cannot be shoppers. they are no longer asylum seekers once they have reached a safe country. The debate, logically, is whether Mexico is a safe country? That is open to debate.

Canada, years ago, started enforcing the “safe country” rule. Unfortunately, the USA is at times eager to deport some non-citizens, meaning some argue here that the USA is “not a safe country”. Meanwhile, there’s the loophole in both countries - if a foreign citizen is apprehended already on your territory, not at a border crossing, then the country they came from (such as Mexico) is not obliged to take back someone not their citizen, even if they “obviously came from there”. You’re stuck with them until their refugee status is established.

What’s also at debate is what constitutes persecution - is risk from organized crime a valid reason to be a refugee? Societies where the authorities look the other way hen gay people are assaulted and killed? etc.

Then, when someone applies for asylum, there is a court hearing to determine if their claim is valid. Like everything legal, this has been allowed to slip - bigly. IIRC the current backlog is 3 years. Economic migrants - simply looking for a better paying job - are not valid refugees. One of the things in the current bill being hashed out in the senate is apparently to actually put some money toward increasing the number of people involved in the refugee courts, to speed the determination.

And obviously, someone disappears into the woodwork, and if they lose their case, then INS has to go find them, 3 years later, and try to deport them. Meanwhile, since some people have been in the country for decades and are still liable for deportation, some jurisdictions are hostile to long-time residents being rounded up and do not want to cooperate with the Immigration cops.

3

There’s this article here…
describes one person who waited 8 years for his refugee asylum claim…

4

And a congressman discussing the failed senate border bill mentioned that 5 to 8 years was now normal for asylum claims to be adjudicated.

5

I appreciate the participation.

Unfortunately, I haven’t got the answer I was looking for. The claim is oft repeated that Biden has the powers under current law to stop the flow. As I understand it, that’s not true.

But if in fact there are laws that Biden (or the border patrol) could be enforcing but choose not to, I’d like to know specifically what they are.

I don’t know if the lack of responses are because people don’t know, of if there just aren’t any such laws (proving a negative being difficult), or what.

6

Generally speaking, it’s a crime to enter the United States outside of a proper point of entry (think airport, port, border inspection point - show your papers, all that stuff). Or more generally, it’s illegal to improperly enter the country.

So Biden/the President, as the ultimate enforcer of our laws, has the clear authority to enforce the law of improperly entering the country (faithfully ensure the laws be executed, etc.). It’s part of his job. All he has to do is enforce the law against improperly entering the country (that’s the argument I’d imagine)

The point made above, very well I thought, was how difficult in practical terms it is to enforce this law. Reform, border deals, etc are needed to help the President enforce the law. If the argument is we have the law AND we have all the resources necessary to enforce the law, that’s probably GD territory.

If this doesn’t answer the question, then I’m not sure I understand it.

7

And once again - if when apprehended, the person claims refugee status then by law (by international treaty), they must be given a hearing in due course… that course being now 5 or 8 years due to backlog. The bill the Senate agreed on and that the house GOP refused to accept would, I think, have limited the refugee claims to port of entry - being apprehended inside the USA illegally would allow them to send the person back immediately.

Most people arriving now are going to an entry point and claiming refugee status.

8

Another aspect of refugee claims is “no shopping”. If a person is in danger of life and limb or persecution in their country of residence, then they are a valid refugee. Once they make it to a safe country, they are safe, and cannot then go to a third country and claim asylum.

So the interesting question is whether Mexico qualifie as a safe country. Given cartel violence and exploitation of the vulneerable migrants there’s a case to be made it is not. Otherwise, the USA could send people back to wait in Mexico until their case is heard.

Canada has had similar issues with the USA. we’ve had a flood of migrants, particularly Haitians, cross a few years ago (nothing compared to the Mexican border). The temporary amnesty for Haitians following the massive earthquake was about to expire, and Haitians at risk of deportation wer misinformed by some in their community that if they made it to Canada, they could stay. (No, we have the same hearings as the USA, and it takes about 3 years, and they could be sent back to Haiti).

Claimants argued the USA was not safe because they gave less credence to the risk of gang violence, or that the USA does not recognize the risk to gay people in third world countries, etc.

IIRC, the bill the Republican refuse to pass would allow the CBP to send back anyone caught inside the country illegally, with the logic that if you were a valid claimant, you would have gone immediately to a point of entry to make the claim.

9

Is it still the law that you need to apply for asylum before entering the US?

10

It seems the opposite is true:

Cite: Is it legal to cross the U.S. border to seek asylum? | International Rescue Committee (IRC)

11

I think that the thread is confusing “refugee” status and asylum.

To apply for “refugee” status, you must apply from abroad as part of the US Refugee Admissions Program and all of your processing takes places before entry to the United States.

To apply for asylum, you must be present in the United States. You can affirmatively apply for asylum at a port of entry, or within a year after entering. Or you can raise asylum defensively in removal proceedings. The latter is much more common and the former is much more likely to be successful. (Contrary to some claims that I’ve seen, I do not believe that asylum is a defense to the criminal offense of unlawful entry, but I don’t think the government is likely to prosecute it if the application is granted and if the application is denied, than the individual is removed).

12

Yea. I think people use the terms casually which is normal, and I also think different organizations (the United States, ICRC, UN, etc) don’t all use them exactly the same.

I’d say, from a US perspective, it generally goes like this:

Asylum Seeker: Must seek asylum inside the United States. Seeking protection from armed violence/human rights protection in your home country. I think, if you are granted asylum, you become a refugee with all the rights/status that entails - see below.

Refugee: Must apply outside the United States. Seeking protection from armed violence/human rights protection in your home country. When used formally, it’s an official status - if you are granted refugee status you get a lot of rights in the country you end up in even though you are not a citizen or resident (think right to travel, work, healthcare, etc).

Migrant: Foreigner just looking for work or school outside their home country. Obtained permission to enter US (e.g., visa). A migrant should not seek asylum nor be granted refugee status (no fear of violence, human right violation, etc).

Immigrant: Just a foreigner who has already migrated into the United States.

Illegal Immigrant: A foreigner inside the United States illegally. So generally none of the above, but details matter a lot and it can get murky and my ignorance starts to come through here.

Obviously these can blur and overlap (ie, you can fear legit persecution and also leave to look for work). The point is, different laws apply and those laws need resources to be able to be enforced, especially timely. Love to know how right or wrong this is - I tend to oversimplify things to be able to understand them.

13

I think that the problem is that “asylee” and “refugee” have legal definitions (and processes to become one), but the other terms you use don’t have consistently fixed meanings.

To me, “immigrant” implies an intent to remain permanently and would apply to certain groups of lawfully and unlawfully present aliens and, for that matter, naturalized citizens. (By extension, a nonimmigrant alien is one who intends, or is required to, depart at some point). But I don’t know if that’s widely shared.

I agree that “migrant” implies economic motivations (and by extension people who are not qualified to become refugees or asylees), but I definitely don’t think it implies legal status. In fact, I think that it overwhelmingly (maybe exclusively) refers to aliens who enter and remain unlawfully. I can’t imagine seeing an H-1B visa holder referred to as a “migrant,” although it’s probably technically correct.

(You also see a tendency to conflate, for political purposes, legitimate asylum seekers with unlawfully present migrants who apply for asylum defensively to extend the removal proceedings – especially if they are not detained. That’s a more controversial observation, but I think it’s supported by the difference in the petition grant rates between affirmative and defensive asylum petitions. ).

14

The term for those who come to the country to make money, to work for a better wage, etc. is economic migrant. It could refer to either those intending to stay permamently, or those who want to make their bundle and go home.

Immigrants typically refers to those in the country legally and legally recognized as entitled to stay and work. “Illegal immigrants” refers to people who have entered the country illegally (or overstayed a temporary visa) with the intent to remain and work.

I’m not up on the pure technical terms, but as I understand, the majory of of those crossing the border without the proper permission are applicants for asylum - requesting refugee status - or whatever the term is. People caught inside the country will also claim asylum. Either way, it can take a long time to determine if their claim is valid. A recent NYTimes article, for example, refers to the “broken asylum system” and refers to those involved with the non-judgemental term “migrants”.

15

I am curious as to the basis for this claim.

16

First, here’s the latest the White House is considering:
https://www.axios.com/2024/02/22/biden-border-executive-action-asylum

More than you ever want to know:

17

Thanks

This from your first link:

  • If elected again, Trump wants to use Section 212f of the U.S. code, which grants the president broad power to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants” if their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

  • The dramatic actions that Biden is considering on the southern border – including an executive order that would restrict the ability of migrants to claim asylum — don’t require congressional approval.

does seem to support the right’s claim that Biden has more power than he is acknowledging.

18

This would apply to my definition of migrants - people wanting visas. So not asylum seekers or refugees, nor people entering illegally at the border.

So it doesn’t stop or slow illegal immigration, just slows legal immigration and don’t think it would make a difference “at the border”.

With that said, I’m going by what Trump did last time.

This is not a law, yet. It was in the recent border deal that R’s did not pass. So Biden is just going to do it via executive order. I don’t think it qualifies as not enforcing the “law” and certainly it’s not Bidens fault it was not passed into law.

19

This doesn’t seem to support your claim that the majority of illegal border crossings are people who legitimately apply for asylum, or who intend to apply for asylum, or even who illegitimately apply for asylum.

To the contrary, it says that there were 500,000 asylum applications in FY 2022 (which, I assume, includes affirmative applications at ports of entry and applications by lawfully admitted aliens, as well as applications by unlawful entrants made at the border, and defensive applications by unlawfully present aliens in removal proceedings).

In contrast, the New York Times suggests that there was approximately 2.2 million unlawful border crossings in FY 2022.

For better or worse, the point is that (while Biden no stranger to knowingly taking unlawful executive action) if he has authority to issue the executive order under the existing law, then the existing law already gives him the necessary authority.

20

If Biden does declare the border closed, will it make any difference if Congress doesn’t vote for budget increases for border enforcement?

If there is no change in the number of border enforcement agents, would the presidential order make any difference on the ground?