Analysis: Biden kept a Trump-era border policy in place – that was a mistake, allies say

WASHINGTON, Jul.7 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden has frustrated allies by maintaining a Trump-era border eviction policy that was opposed by human rights activists and health experts and appears to be getting little political as Republicans are dealing with him criticize with the limit.

The so-called Title 42 regulation has allowed US officials to immediately deport migrants who illegally cross the border. Biden’s government is now looking to exempt families from the policy in late July after defending them for months as needed to try to stop the spread of COVID-19 across the southern border, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Human rights groups and advocates of migration have hailed the move possible, but some say the Democratic president made a politically costly mistake in keeping it in place for so long. They argue that it has not deterred hundreds of thousands of migrants, nor has it isolated him from Republican attacks, that its policies fueled a surge in migration from Central America.

“No matter what President Biden does at the border, many will criticize him for it,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel with the American Immigration Council, who has called for an end to Title 42. “So he should hey just do the right thing and take action that will respect the law and allow people to seek protection.”

The Title 42 ordinance has also given ammunition to Republican critics as it helped push the number of arrests to a 20-year high in recent months. Because many migrants are simply expelled to Mexico and not deported back to their home countries, a person may be repeatedly arrested for multiple border crossings, making it appear as if more people are crossing the border than is the case.

Crucially, keeping the policy in place has also cost Biden much-needed support among migrant advocacy groups, who have traditionally played key roles in providing legal representation and basic services to recently arrived migrants and whose members have worked closely with the Biden government.

Clara Long, an associate director of New York City-based Human Rights Watch, said the Biden administration wasted its goodwill on lawyers who now fear Biden’s future plans may restrict access to asylum.

“If they had revoked Title 42 immediately, there would have been a lot more reason to trust that they would agree on a principled and generous approach,” she said.

The groups have increased Republican pressure on Biden by publicly speaking out against some of the options the government is reportedly considering replacing Title 42, such as using shackles to monitor migrants’ movements or running an expedited one Procedure to obtain asylum or to be deported.

While Biden came into office and promised a more humane immigration system, he repeatedly found that it was logistically and politically difficult to break down the web of restrictive policies of his predecessor Donald Trump.

The government’s decision to keep Title 42 was supported by fears that lifting restrictions could attract even more migrants from Central America and elsewhere to the border, potentially undermining public support for Biden’s broader immigration agenda. Continue reading

A White House spokesman defended the government’s decision to continue the border evictions.

“We are still in the midst of a global pandemic and many people from countries with high transmission rates come to our border,” said the spokesman. “Because we have to process people in community facilities, we are still working under COVID protocols which limit the number of people in our facilities.”

Biden officials point out that they have made humanitarian exemptions from Title 42 that allow unaccompanied migrant children and many families to enter the United States to pursue their cases for asylum or other forms of protection.

INCREASINGLY ISOLATED

But the government seemed increasingly isolated in its determination to hold on to policies that, according to human rights groups and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, have resulted in migrants facing violence and kidnappings in northern Mexico. Continue reading

A prominent ally of Biden, who previously defended the government’s decision to keep Title 42, has reversed course.

Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, tweeted in February that keeping Title 42 while overhauling the asylum system and enforcing immigration services would help prevent a surge in migration.

Selee told Reuters he has changed his mind and considers its effectiveness as a deterrent to be questionable as border arrests have increased in recent months.

“There’s no point in keeping it if it doesn’t actually deter migration,” said Selee, who briefed Vice President Kamala Harris on migration issues in April. “My hope was that they would buy some time to build a really working system on the border. But that didn’t quite happen.”

The Biden government is considering ending Title 42 for families by the end of July, according to those familiar with the deliberations, but this is unlikely to appease migrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers.

If the government finishes Title 42, it could face the choice of either releasing migrants to the United States to pursue their immigration cases, which at the current pace may take years to resolve, or detaining them.

If Biden steps up deportation and incarceration – which advocates and some Democrats oppose – he could alienate allies who helped process asylum seekers at the border and supported other parts of his more welcoming approach to immigration.

More than 100 immigrant advocacy groups said in a June letter that the possible use of ankle monitors, extended detention and a faster deportation process known as “expedited deportation” to treat incoming migrants would be both inhuman and ineffective.

Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional coverage from Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Adaptation by Ross Colvin and Aurora Ellis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.