When the campaign trail was in full swing, Joe Biden criticized harsh policies that limited asylum and immigration, contrasting them with his goal of a more humane nation of immigrants. He argued that asylum seekers deserve a real opportunity to present their case, and he pledged to restore a system that values compassion alongside border security in the United States of America.
Yet, those ideals appeared to shift as the political calendar progressed. This week, the Biden administration unveiled a regulation that curbs the government’s capacity to set asylum rules, challenging decades of precedent. The move echoes measures once pursued by Donald Trump, though the outcomes and court responses diverged in the past. The question now is whether a different path can be found that balances sovereignty with protection for those seeking refuge.
few exceptions
According to regulations released by the departments responsible for justice and homeland security, some asylum seekers will face barriers at the border. Individuals arriving by land without prior asylum filings in the United States or in countries they passed through before arriving may see their applications rejected. Most land arrivals, with the exception of Mexican nationals, pass through a country other than the United States before entering the country, complicating eligibility in some cases.
Asylum seekers will also need a prior appointment at a processing center before reaching a formal entry point to apply, a requirement typically managed through a mobile app. The CBP One app, already launched in January, has faced high demand and technical issues, impacting timely access for many applicants.
While exceptions exist for unaccompanied minors, the rule effectively closes the door for tens of thousands traveling alone, those with urgent medical needs, and individuals facing imminent or extreme threats of violence or other highly challenging circumstances.
Arguments and criticism
The regulation opened to public critique for a 30-day window. It is set to take effect in May and will initially be in force for two years. The timing is not incidental: as the emergency declarations tied to the pandemic expire on May 11, there is pressure to determine whether the policy will be enforceable beyond that date, reflecting ongoing tensions over asylum enforcement.
Administration officials argued that border controls are necessary to prevent a surge, describing the measure as a temporary step rather than a permanent shift. They asserted it was adopted out of necessity and emphasized its provisional nature, while noting that reform of immigration laws remains a Congressional responsibility. Critics, however, warned that the policy could be exploited for political gain and undermine long-standing international protection norms.
Opposition voices, including some within the Democratic Party and immigrant-rights groups, seized on the move as a political maneuver. Republicans argued that it signals a broader unwillingness to provide refuge and accused the administration of playing politics with vulnerable people. The American Civil Liberties Union, which previously halted a similar Trump-era effort in court, signaled opposition to this approach, arguing that asylum protections must be upheld in accordance with U.S. law. A deputy director of the group’s national policy division criticized the policy as a rebranding of a ban on asylum under a different name.
“Unnecessary Pain”
Mary Meg McCarthy, director at the National Center for Justice Immigration, argued that the rule breaches the United States’ obligations under national and international humanitarian law. She pointed to federal protections that guarantee access to asylum for those fleeing persecution and noted that asylum rights should not depend on how a person enters the country or what documents they hold.
Marisa Limón Garza, director of the Las Américas Immigration Support Center, remarked that President Biden has often faced criticism for failing to deliver on campaign promises to ease asylum restrictions. She described the policy as cruel and unlawful, predicting it would cause unnecessary human suffering. Statements like these reflect ongoing worries about the balance between border security and humane treatment of asylum seekers, a topic that resonates across Canada, the United States, and beyond, and which many stakeholders expect to be revisited in future policy debates [CITE: Immigrant advocacy groups, 2024].