Inside the federal judge's decision to reject Biden's asylum restrictions at the border

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

55% : His ruling also sided with the legal service organizations in refuting that migrants had safe third-country options to claim asylum, including "the suggestion that seeking protection in Mexico is a viable option for many asylum seekers."
54% : "To them, that is an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of border management.
51% : Under the new changes, migrants are barred from seeking asylum if they did not seek protection in a third country on their way to the U.S. or failed to apply through one of the "legal pathways" the U.S. government established, such as humanitarian parole programs or making an appointment at a port of entry using a mobile application called CBP One.
50% : The new changes to asylum eligibility took effect May 11, the same day that the Homeland Security Department ended enforcement of Title 42, a three-year-old public health rule that allowed authorities to turn away migrants at the border.
46% : U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco ruled that the public rule titled "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways," published May 16 by the Homeland Security and Justice departments, was "substantively and procedurally invalid" because it violated a U.S. law that allows a person to claim asylum in the United States regardless of how they arrive in the country.
46% : But the judge ruled that "the availability of refugee admissions, parole, or work visas is irrelevant to the availability of asylum, which Congress considered to be independent of any particular means of entry."
36% : Those who fail to use one of the many lawful pathways we have expanded will be presumed ineligible for asylum and, if they do not have a basis to remain, will be subject to prompt removal, a minimum five-year bar on admission, and potential criminal prosecution for unlawful reentry," he added.
36% : "Last week the government conceded that under the ban, people with meritorious legal claims can be barred from asylum and deported to countries where they face grave harm," said Melissa Crow, the director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies.
33% : But six immigration legal groups filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration claiming that the exemptions and many of the legal pathways used to justify the restrictions on asylum were not available to most migrants.

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.