President Joe Biden might be considering measures that starkly resemble the contentious policies of his predecessor, Donald Trump. According to insider accounts, Biden is mulling over the use of executive powers to significantly tighten restrictions on asylum at the U.S. southern border. This potential pivot, which could drastically alter the landscape for asylum seekers by barring those who enter the U.S. illegally from being granted asylum, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from progressive circles and immigration advocates alike.
Leading the charge is Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), who took to social media to express her outrage, emphasizing the sacred legal right to seek asylum. “Doing Trump impressions isn’t how we beat Trump,” AOC remarked, underscoring the fundamental principles that should guide the nation’s approach to asylum and immigration. “The mere suggestion is outrageous, and the President should refuse to sign it,” she added, casting the potential policy shift as a betrayal of the Democratic party’s values and a capitulation to Trump-era tactics.
This brewing storm of controversy centers around Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a provision historically wielded by presidents to control the entry of noncitizens deemed harmful to U.S. interests. Trump infamously invoked this authority to implement his widely condemned Muslim Ban, a move that Biden reversed on his first day in office in a gesture celebrated as a return to humanity and legality in immigration policy.
Yet, if Biden were to enact a sweeping ban on asylum under the same legal pretext, it would not only undermine his administration’s earlier stance but also signal a distressing continuity with Trump’s most inhumane policies. Critics, including Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), warn against adopting “cruel enforcement-only policies” that have historically failed to address the complexities of immigration and asylum, advocating instead for policies grounded in dignity and respect for human rights.
The legal feasibility of such a drastic shift remains in question, with experts like Cornell immigration law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr cautioning against overreach under Section 212(f). However, the Supreme Court’s previous endorsement of a version of Trump’s Muslim Ban, despite lower courts’ objections, casts a long shadow over the potential for legal challenges to Biden’s proposed measures.
As the Biden administration contemplates this contentious path, the reaction from the progressive wing of his party and immigration advocates underscores a deep divide. The prospect of adopting measures reminiscent of one of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s legacy is a stark reminder of the ongoing struggle over the soul and direction of U.S. immigration policy. In the face of authoritarian threats and challenges to fundamental rights, the call for steadfast adherence to principles of justice and compassion has never been more urgent.
