Federal Court Rules Against Biden Policy Severely Restricting Asylum

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

52% : Asylum can potentially be denied if the migrant had a "safe option" for refuge in another country.
50% : As written, the Rule imposes a presumption of ineligibility on asylum seekers who did not apply for or were granted asylum in a transit country regardless of whether that country is a safe option.
45% : The Rule is also contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who fail to apply for protection in a transit country, despite Congress's clear intent that such a factor should only limit access to asylum where the transit country actually presents a safe option.
44% : Asylum can then be granted if the migrant in question is ""unable or unwilling to return to" his or her home county "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion."
40% : The Biden policy, like Trump's before it, violates the plain text of the Refugee Act of 1980, which as Judge Tigar notes, "provides that any noncitizen who arrives in the United States, 'whether or not at a designated port of arrival' and 'irrespective of [their] status, may apply for asylum.'"
40% : In my view, the better approach to border management is not to preemptively bar asylum-seekers fleeing terrible conditions, but to make legal migration easier -- thereby obviating the need for many migrants to come to the border at all, and enabling others to quickly move on to their final destinations in the interior.
39% : The Court concludes that the Rule is contrary to law because it presumes ineligible for asylum noncitizens who enter between ports of entry, using a manner of entry that Congress expressly intended should not affect access to asylum.
37% : [U]nder the Rule, noncitizens other than Mexican nationals who cross the southern border are presumed ineligible for asylum unless they (1) have received advance permission to travel to the U.S. to apply for parole; (2) present at a port of entry for a pre-scheduled appointment (or without an appointment, if they can demonstrate an "ongoing and serious obstacle" that precluded pre-scheduling); or (3) have already sought and been denied asylum or other protection in another country en route to the U.S.
33% : In May, the Biden administration instituted what I have called a "Trump-lite" asylum policy, severely restricting asylum applications by migrants crossing the southern border.
32% : Many migrants potentially eligible for asylum cannot take advantage of the various exceptions because they are not from the CNVH nations, have no safe opportunity to apply for asylum elsewhere, and cannot effectively use the often clunky app appointment system.
21% : By contrast, under the new Biden policy, non-Mexican migrants who cross the southern border are presumptively barred from applying for asylum unless they fall within certain specified exceptions:

*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.