In the midst of international mourning for the catastrophe that occurred last Monday in Ciudad Juárez, in which 39 migrants detained at the National Migration Institute (INM) died, more and more voices of rejection to President Joe Biden’s proposal to restrict political asylum to a greater number of applicants are emerging.
As the deadline for receiving opinions from civil society ended this week, the federal administration received more than 50,000 public comments on the Biden administration’s rule that prohibits asylum for the majority of non-Mexican immigrants who do not seek it in other countries along the way, or who do not opt for other paths.
March 27 was the deadline for public comments on the “transit ban” rule proposed by the Biden administration, which is expected to be implemented after the likely May 11 expiration date of Title 42 authority, according to the organization Human Rights Advocacy in the Americas (WOLA).
The public response to the rule was surprising. The Regulations.gov website of the US federal government has received 51,952 comments, of which 12,624 were posted in its online record.
Not all who commented are non-governmental. Fourteen federal Democratic senators published a comment opposing the rule, as did 68 representatives.
The UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, published a critique. The union that represents federal asylum officers also posted a comment.
Biden’s restrictions, proposed after his visit to El Paso, unleashed general condemnation among migrant advocates, including El Paso Bishop Mark Seitz and federal representative Veronica Escobar.
Interestingly, Seitz and Escobar participated in the presidential visit to El Paso amid the migrant crisis. Seitz was one of four people who received Biden at the airport, while Escobar traveled to her hometown on Air Force One.
“As a bishop on the border, I am deeply concerned about this new proposal to limit asylum by the administration. This policy is a major step backwards at a time when we really need significant reform,” Seitz said in a videoconference attended by clerics from different religions that make up the Welcome with Dignity Campaign.
“I am disappointed that the Biden administration is choosing to limit access to asylum, which is one of the few remaining legal avenues for many migrants fleeing violence to seek refuge in our country,” Escobar said at the time.
The congresswoman considered seeking asylum at our border to be an established right and the last thing we should compromise.
“In the past, I praised the Biden administration for its efforts to expand legal pathways for asylum seekers while working to fully restore access to asylum at our ports of entry, but the policies described in the proposed rule are a step back,” Escobar said.
Condolences are not enough
Following the deaths of the 39 migrants in Juarez, a statement from the US Embassy in Mexico offered condolences and added that the tragedy “confirms that those who wish to migrate must do so through legal channels, to avoid the risks of irregular migration and people smugglers.“
A tweet from the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at the Department of State similarly stated, “Their deaths are a painful reminder of the risks of irregular migration and the need to expand legal pathways.” CBP indicated that some of the injured may receive humanitarian parole to receive treatment within the United States.
Migrant rights defenders noted that US government officials’ official statements did not mention that asylum seekers had been forced to choose their paths due to restrictive policies such as Title 42 and insufficient appointments at ports of entry for users of CBP’s smartphone application, CBP One.
“Surprisingly, US officials have reacted by referring to the fire as a ‘risk’ of irregular migration and stating that migrants must follow ‘legal pathways,'” a WOLA statement reads. “Such responses imply that migrants died because they chose to put themselves
TYT Newsroom
