Tweet Share Share Comment

There’s a unique sort of bipartisan consensus right now in Washington. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are reportedly close to reaching agreement on a bill—one that has been preapproved by the White House—that would grant the president authority to “shut down” the U.S.–Mexico border if daily attempted crossings by undocumented migrants reach a certain threshold. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says he won’t pass the bill, but his reasoning isn’t that it’s a bad idea. Instead, he argues that Biden actually already has the authority to order a shutdown. Johnson might also be feeling pressure from Donald Trump, who has said he doesn’t want Republicans to pass the bill because it would be a political “gift” to Biden and Democrats.

What all these positions presuppose, even while being in conflict with one another, is that if the president “shuts down” the border, it will reduce the number of attempted crossings by migrants and ameliorate what both parties describe as a chaotic, overwhelmed immigration system. But is that true? And what does it mean to “shut down” migration that is already unauthorized by definition? Is this bill going to give Joe Biden a dang magic wand? We spoke about these questions and others with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director of the American Immigration Council—which, for the record, agrees that the current system needs a major overhaul. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Advertisement

Slate: Let’s start with the basics here. The problem everyone seems to agree on is that there are more migrants arriving in the U.S. to seek asylum protections than there are border officers, agents, and facilities to handle them?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick: Right, and right now, considering eligibility for asylum is part of the process by which people can be deported. There is no basic authority that allows the president to simply skip asylum. When somebody crosses the border, they are inside the United States already—they have already “made an entry.” And in having made an entry, they can only be deported one of two ways.

The first way is called expedited removal. And the other is through the normal removal process, where somebody goes in front of an immigration judge and the judge issues a deportation order. But to deport someone, you need a removal order, whether through expedited removal or immigration court. And even expedited removal has the backstop protection of the “credible fear” interview process, in which individuals who express fear of persecution in their home country must be screened for asylum eligibility before they can be deported.

Who does that screening?

Advertisement

It has to be done by an asylum officer, and there are simply not that many asylum officers. So there are strong limitations to the number of credible-fear interviews that can be carried out at any given time, which is why you get people being sent to immigration court instead of being sent through the expedited removal process.

Advertisement

What about Mike Johnson’s claim that presidents already have the unilateral authority to order immediate removals?

That’s Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is the same authority President Trump invoked for the Muslim ban.

Section 212(f) says the president can “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” if he finds that their admission is “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Advertisement

Yes, Johnson is saying Biden can simply invoke this authority. That is not true, and we know because Trump tried it 2018. He issued a travel ban that suspended the entry of all migrants crossing the border, then combined it with a regulation that banned people from seeking asylum if they had crossed the border in violation of a presidential proclamation. This was struck down in court as a violation of the right to seek asylum. We created our asylum system in 1980, and the law says quite clearly that the right to apply for asylum applies regardless of how you enter the country, even if it’s not at a port of entry, even if you’re undocumented. But here we are, five years later, and no one in the House GOP seems to remember it happened.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

How would the Senate bill attempt to address this in its authorization of “shutdowns”? Let’s say the president orders a “shutdown” but you cross the border anyway. What happens to you then?

We don’t know yet, because they haven’t released the bill’s text, but it could be something like expedited removal, where a person gets a formal order and is deported to another country, either Mexico or their home country, but without the right to seek asylum. Or it could be something more akin to Title 42, which was the COVID-era order shutting the border on public-health grounds. Those expulsions didn’t count as deportation orders; it was basically driving people back to the border and shoving them back across the bridge.

Advertisement

But Title 42 was actually in place until May 2023, during the time when there were records being set for the numbers of attempted crossings.

A person who was expelled under Title 42, because it was not a deportation order, could cross the border again, safe in the knowledge that the worst that could happen to them was a first-time crossing misdemeanor prosecution charge, or just being expelled again under Title 42. So some people under Title 42 crossed the border, unsuccessfully, dozens of times, then finally made it through. By contrast, if they’d been given an expulsion order, then any subsequent entry would be illegal reentry after removal—a felony, and they could be sent to federal prison.

Advertisement

Advertisement

What would happen to the right to claim asylum under a shutdown?

It’s been reported that the bill would supposedly have some form of backstop protection screening for people, even those being expelled under a shutdown, that if they affirmatively expressed their fear of persecution, they’d [still] be eligible. By law right now, agents must inquire whether a person has a fear of persecution, but under this new rule, the default would be that they’d have to affirmatively express it.

Advertisement

Would all of this, in your estimation, deter people from attempting to cross?

Until we see the actual text, it’s hard to say definitively. But if it’s an authority that looks a lot like Title 42, the answer would be definitely not. We saw, under Title 42, a huge increase in people crossing. And so we have hard evidence that just a generic expulsion authority doesn’t quote-unquote “work,” especially due to this repeat-crossing issue.

Advertisement

Related From Slate

Molly Olmstead

Texas and Biden Are Warring Over a Border Town. Its Residents Just Want Their Park Back.

Read More

And there are significant logistical and diplomatic issues with actually carrying out these new deportations that a shutdown would require. At any point, Mexico could simply say, We don’t want the United States to send people back here. And if that happens, then the United States would really have little choice but to actually admit a bunch of people, even despite this shutdown, because the United States has limited capacity to carry out mass deportations by air. When you drop people off at the Mexican border, a lot of times they will make a second attempt to cross. If you’ve traveled 5,000 miles to get here and you’re stuck at the border, you will probably end up putting yourself in the hands of a smuggler. Although there have been rumors that the bill would have some sort of punishment for people who cross more than once.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

That would require tracking who border-crossers are, though. That creates another administrative task to perform, when the purpose of this bill is supposed to be to reduce the burden on the system.

Yeah, although part of what’s expected in this package that gets a lot less attention is a huge increase in resources. Reportedly, this would include funding for over 1,600 new asylum officers, 75 immigration judges, more funding for detention, more funding for Border Patrol. All of that will make a difference.

Advertisement

Popular in News & Politics

  1. A State Supreme Court Just Issued the Most Devastating Rebuke of Dobbs Yet
  2. Trump’s Going to Be on Trial All Year. We’ve Already Learned Something Important.
  3. Texas and Biden Are Warring Over a Border Town. Its Residents Just Want Their Park Back.
  4. Ivanka Trump Is Quietly Making Her Way Back Into the World. It’s a Strange Alternate Reality.

I will note that in the short term, the bill would likely cause a reduction. Every time border policy changes, people take a wait-and-see approach for a while. So it’s possible that this would cause a reduction in numbers, then we’d see arrivals start to increase again. We also know that Title 42 did make it less likely for families to cross the border, because you don’t want to put a child through that kind of thing, attempting to cross many times. So if you have some sort of authority that does send people back to Mexico, it’s likely that this would deter families from crossing—but then you’d probably see the families who were there send their children across the border as unaccompanied minors. We know that this kind of self-separation happened a lot under both Biden and Trump.

Advertisement

Advertisement

And that’s because there are extra legal protections for unaccompanied minors?

Yes, and there have been no reports that those would be changed [under the bill being negotiated].

The reality is that every time the United States significantly ramps up enforcement, smugglers will try to find a way around it. Over the last decade, smuggling networks have risen dramatically across the Western Hemisphere. They used to really start at the U.S.–Mexico border. But now, with so much migration from Central America, the trails travel thousands of miles south and have started to spread across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. And so it’s very hard to say whether you can put that genie back in the bottle.

Tweet Share Share Comment

QOSHE - So Many People Want Biden to “Shut Down” the Border to Stop Migration. There’s Just One Problem With This! - Ben Mathis-Lilley
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

So Many People Want Biden to “Shut Down” the Border to Stop Migration. There’s Just One Problem With This!

3 31
01.02.2024
Tweet Share Share Comment

There’s a unique sort of bipartisan consensus right now in Washington. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are reportedly close to reaching agreement on a bill—one that has been preapproved by the White House—that would grant the president authority to “shut down” the U.S.–Mexico border if daily attempted crossings by undocumented migrants reach a certain threshold. Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson says he won’t pass the bill, but his reasoning isn’t that it’s a bad idea. Instead, he argues that Biden actually already has the authority to order a shutdown. Johnson might also be feeling pressure from Donald Trump, who has said he doesn’t want Republicans to pass the bill because it would be a political “gift” to Biden and Democrats.

What all these positions presuppose, even while being in conflict with one another, is that if the president “shuts down” the border, it will reduce the number of attempted crossings by migrants and ameliorate what both parties describe as a chaotic, overwhelmed immigration system. But is that true? And what does it mean to “shut down” migration that is already unauthorized by definition? Is this bill going to give Joe Biden a dang magic wand? We spoke about these questions and others with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy director of the American Immigration Council—which, for the record, agrees that the current system needs a major overhaul. The interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Advertisement

Slate: Let’s start with the basics here. The problem everyone seems to agree on is that there are more migrants arriving in the U.S. to seek asylum protections than there are border officers, agents, and facilities to handle them?

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick: Right, and right now, considering eligibility for asylum is part of the process by which people can be deported. There is no basic authority that allows the president to simply skip asylum. When somebody crosses the border, they are inside the United States already—they have already “made an entry.” And in having made an entry, they can only be deported one of two ways.

The first way is called expedited removal. And the other is through the normal removal process, where somebody goes in front of an immigration judge and the judge issues a deportation order. But to deport someone, you need a removal order, whether through expedited removal or immigration court. And even expedited removal has the backstop protection of the “credible fear” interview process, in which........

© Slate


Get it on Google Play