The Latin American Report # 341: a dive into current U.S. border management policies

The Democratic administration feels cornered on immigration, so, in the run-up to the November elections, it is trying to show a cooler or harder stance on a problem that the Republicans have been able to capitalize on. A Fox News reporter says that Biden has activated the hawkish mode. Thus, this week the White House tightened a rule introduced in June that virtually raises the bar for migrants to file asylum cases “during emergency border circumstances”. The rule implementing the presidential proclamation sets out a huge goal that in practice can´t be implemented: to suspend and limit the entry into the United States of certain categories of noncitizens. Media outlets like EFE erroneously present this as a suspension or veto of asylum, but the migrant will always be able to apply for it. It is the law. The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice acknowledge that “[the] rule's limitation on asylum eligibility does not prevent anyone from pursuing a claim for asylum, nor does it categorically foreclose eligibility for asylum”. There is some rhetoric here.

Let us recall the main points of the regulation presented in June: 1) individuals who enter the United States irregularly during “emergency border circumstances”—as now—“will be ineligible for asylum” unless they demonstrate that exceptionally compelling circumstances exist in their cases; 2) asylum officers will not guide migrants on their right to apply for protection in the United States, but will wait for them to make a direct move, which demands a legal culture that for many vulnerable migrants can be elusive; and 3) migrants must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability of being persecuted or tortured in their home countries, a higher standard than normal because it demands a more specific, individualized narrative to defend each application for protection. The intent is “to impose consequences quickly” on those without a legal basis to remain in the United States, an effort widely criticized by some human rights organizations.

In a nod to November, the Biden administration now says that the border emergency proclamation will only lose effect when “there have been 28 consecutive calendar days of a 7-consecutive-calendar-day average of less than 1,500 encounters.” The previous version of the proclamation spoke of 14 consecutive calendar days without tension at the border. This condition is triggered when “there has been a 7-consecutive-calendar-day average of 2,500 encounters or more”. Currently, Border Patrol's 7-day-encounters-average is below 1,800 (taking as a reference the period between the introduction of the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule in 2023 and last June's border emergency proclamation, there is a reduction of close to 60% in the average daily total encounters between ports of entry at the southwest land border). Between last June and August, authorities have repatriated 70% of single adults and individuals in family units encountered by U.S. Border Patrol, with nearly 400 repatriation flights operated.

The issue continues to mark the socio-political agenda strongly. In a small town in Pennsylvania, a teacher spoke to Reuters about the challenge that “a sharp rise in students from Haiti who did not speak English” has posed for her. “It [is] very stressful,” she said. “We never know when we're going to get new ones coming in, where their levels are, how adjusted they are to this culture. The unexpected.” More than 500,000 migrant children in school age have arrived in the United States in the last three years, “compounding teacher and budget shortfalls; forcing teachers to grapple with language barriers and inflaming social tensions in places unaccustomed to educating immigrant students,” according to the British news agency. The Republican pair aspiring to the Oval Office continues punishing with a disturbing anti-immigrant narrative, recently claiming that some 320,000 migrant children are “lost”, taking an official report out of context, again.

This Friday it was learned that the Biden administration will not extend the period of validity of a humanitarian parole that has benefited some 530,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian, and Nicaraguan migrants. The program, criticized by Republicans for apparent abuse of presidential parole granting powers, allows nationals of these countries with solvent sponsors in the United States to live the “American dream” for two years. Unlike other programs such as the CBP One mobile app-based one, which involves arriving in México somehow and thus exposing yourself to countless life-threatening risks, the humanitarian parole program is a very convenient way because, if approved, migrants just fly into U.S. territory from their favorite airports at home.

“If you have not sought a lawful status or period of authorized stay, you will need to leave the United States before your authorized parole period expires, or you may be placed in removal proceedings after your period of parole expires,” the government warned. The safest here are Cubans, under specific legislation that allows them to apply for permanent residency after 1 year of being legally admitted to the United States. Some human rights groups denounce that the administration discriminates against migrants from this hemisphere, taking into account that Afghan and Ukrainian nationals blessed by a similar program were indeed “re-paroled”. In any case, the program—which has had bumps in its development because of fraudulent sponsorship applications—will remain open to process new applicants.

With some inaccuracies, but this is another great story on the immigration crisis.

And this is all for our report today. I have referenced the sources dynamically in the text, and remember you can learn how and where to follow the LATAM trail news by reading my work here. Have a nice day.

Posted Using InLeo Alpha