ACLU Sues Biden Administration Over New Asylum Limits at Southern Border: Violation of Federal Immigration Law?

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
ACLU and migrant rights groups filed a lawsuit against Biden's administration on June 12, 2024 over new asylum limits at the southern border.
Biden invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows a president to limit entries for migrants deemed 'detrimental' to national interest.
Biden's order limits asylum processing when encounters with migrants reach 2,500 per day and violates existing federal immigration law according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. and comes as Republican-led states challenge Biden's reversals of Trump-era immigration policies.
The order went into effect on June 5 and could lead to punishments such as a five-year bar from reentering the U.S or criminal prosecution for those who do not express a fear of returning to their home countries.
ACLU Sues Biden Administration Over New Asylum Limits at Southern Border: Violation of Federal Immigration Law?

In recent developments, President Joe Biden's administration has faced a legal challenge over its new asylum crackdown at the southern border. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and several migrant rights groups filed a lawsuit against the president on June 12, 2024. The lawsuit argues that Biden's order, which limits asylum processing once encounters with migrants between ports of entry reach 2,500 per day, violates existing federal immigration law.

The order went into effect on June 5 and is designed to deflect political attacks against the president on his handling of immigration. However, advocates argue that suspending asylum for migrants who do not arrive at designated ports of entry could lead to punishments such as a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.

Biden invoked the same legal authority used by the Trump administration for its asylum ban, which comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision allows a president to limit entries for certain migrants if their entry is deemed 'detrimental' to the national interest.

Under Biden's directive, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States. Those migrants could face punishments that include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.

The lawsuit is the first legal action against Biden's restrictive immigration policy change, which came after months of internal White House deliberations and record levels of deportations.

Biden has repeatedly criticized Trump's immigration policies but argues that his directive is different because it includes several exemptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors, and those with severe medical emergencies would not be subject to the limits.

The lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in Washington, D.C., and comes as Republican-led states have challenged Biden's reversals of Trump-era immigration policies and programs.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

91%

Doubts
  • Are there any potential loopholes or exemptions to Biden's asylum limits that could mitigate their impact?
  • Is there any precedent for this specific interpretation of Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?

Sources

89%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Biden faces first lawsuit over new asylum crackdown at the border

Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Wednesday, 12 June 2024 00:00
  • Unique Points
    • A coalition of immigrant advocacy groups sued the Biden administration on June 9, 2022 over President Joe Biden’s directive that effectively halts asylum claims at the southern border.
    • Biden’s order limits asylum processing once encounters with migrants between ports of entry reach 2,500 per day.
    • Migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours.
    • Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.
  • Accuracy
    • President Biden invoked the same legal authority used by the Trump administration for its asylum ban, which comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article reports on a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration over its new asylum policy, but it also includes editorializing and emotional manipulation. The author states that the new policy 'differs little from a similar move during the Trump administration' and quotes an attorney saying 'we were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit.' These statements imply that the Biden administration's actions are morally equivalent to those of the previous administration, which is an emotional manipulation. Additionally, there is selective reporting as the article only reports details that support the argument against the new policy and ignores any potential benefits or context. The author also uses sensational language such as 'record levels of deportations' and 'punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.'
    • We stand by the value proposition.
    • Under Biden’s directive, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.
    • The lawsuit – filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES – is the first test of the legality of Biden’s sweeping crackdown on the border, which came after months of internal White House deliberations and is designed in part to deflect political attacks against the president on his handling of immigration.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication

80%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

ACLU and migrant rights groups sue over Biden's asylum crackdown

CBS News Site: https://www.cbsnews.com/articles/about-us/ Camilo Montoya-Galvez Wednesday, 12 June 2024 23:41
  • Unique Points
    • ACLU and migrant rights groups filed a lawsuit against President Biden’s new immigration order on June 12, 2024.
    • President Biden invoked the 212(f) authority to suspend the entry of most migrants along the southern border.
    • Migrants who cross illegally between official ports of entry are currently banned from asylum under Biden’s order.
  • Accuracy
    • The ACLU argues that this suspension of asylum between ports of entry violates U.S. asylum law and federal policy-making rules.
    • Migrants who secure one of 1,450 daily appointments to enter the U.S. at ports of entry are still eligible to apply for asylum.
    • U.S. immigration officials have been able to deport larger numbers of migrants more quickly since they cannot request asylum under Biden’s order.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position against Biden's immigration policy. The author does not provide any context about the reasons behind Biden's policy or the current state of border crossings. Additionally, there is emotional manipulation through phrases like 'countless people at risk', 'placing countless people at risk', and 'the ban will place countless people at risk'.
    • The American Civil Liberties Union and several migrant rights groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday targeting President Biden’s recently announced crackdown on asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, challenging the legality of his restrictive immigration policy change just a week after it was enacted.
    • The ban will place countless people at risk and is legally identical to the Trump ban we successfully blocked.
    • The civil rights organization also challenged another measure announced last week that reduced the time migrants in U.S. border custody have to consult with lawyers before their asylum screenings from 24 to 4 hours.
    • In response to the lawsuit, White House spokesperson Angelo Fernandez Hernandez told CBS News in a statement that 'the Biden-Harris Administration took these actions, within its authorities, because border encounters remain too high and after Congressional Republicans twice voted against a historic bipartisan border security agreement that would have provided critical resources, statutory changes, and additional personnel to the border.'
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority by stating that the ACLU has successfully blocked a similar policy in the past. This is not a logical fallacy on its own, but it can be misleading if taken out of context or used to undermine other arguments without providing additional evidence.
    • The ACLU convinced federal courts to halt a Trump administration asylum restriction in 2018 that relied on the same legal authority, known as 212(f).
  • Bias (95%)
    The author does not demonstrate any clear bias in the article. However, there is a disproportionate number of quotes that reflect a negative position towards Biden's immigration policy and the ACLU's lawsuit against it. The author also uses language that depicts the Biden administration's actions as restrictive and limiting, but this is an objective description of the policy.
    • In its lawsuit, the ACLU challenged the suspension of asylum between ports of entry, citing a provision in federal law that says migrants who set foot on US soil ‘whether or not at a designated port of arrival’ may apply for asylum.
      • Mr. Biden’s move has allowed U.S. immigration officials to deport larger numbers of migrants more quickly, since they cannot request asylum.
        • The American Civil Liberties Union and several migrant rights groups filed a lawsuit Wednesday targeting President Biden’s recently announced crackdown on asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        78%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Biden’s new measures to stem illegal border crossings draw legal challenge

        The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Maria Sacchetti Wednesday, 12 June 2024 21:48
        • Unique Points
          • President Biden’s latest asylum restrictions on the U.S. southern border are being challenged in a lawsuit by immigrant advocacy groups.
          • 'The lawsuit claims the Biden administration’s measures violate federal law and betray the US government’s promise to avoid sending migrants to countries where they could be harmed or killed.'
          • 'Immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of two Texas-based immigrant advocacy groups: Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES.'
        • Accuracy
          • President Biden's latest asylum restrictions on the U.S. southern border are being challenged in a lawsuit by immigrant advocacy groups.
          • The lawsuit claims the Biden administration’s measures violate federal law and betray the US government’s promise to avoid sending migrants to countries where they could be harmed or killed.
          • Migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours.
          • The restrictions would be in effect until two weeks after the daily encounter numbers are at or below 1,500 per day between ports of entry, under a seven-day average.
          • Biden invoked the same legal authority used by the Trump administration for its asylum ban, which comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
        • Deception (30%)
          The article contains selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author only reports details that support the administration's position and creates a sense of urgency by stating that 'the numbers of immigrants entering the U.S. illegally is unmanageable' and 'polls signal the issue could hurt Biden as he vies for a second term'. The article also implies that migrants are ignoring legal routes into the country, but fails to mention that many are fleeing dangerous conditions in their home countries and have no other options.
          • Polls signal the issue could hurt Biden as he vies for a second term.
          • The numbers of immigrants entering the U.S. illegally is unmanageable,
        • Fallacies (80%)
          The author makes an appeal to authority by mentioning the Trump administration's failed asylum restrictions and the court challenges to those restrictions. However, this does not constitute a fallacy on its own as it is relevant information. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Biden's new measures as a 'ban' and 'asylum restrictions.' While these words may be accurate, they can be perceived as emotionally charged and potentially misleading. Additionally, the author mentions that the Biden administration's rules require migrants to 'manifest their fears by speaking up, shaking or crying,' which is an example of a dichotomous depiction as it presents only two options for expressing fear. This can be limiting and may not accurately reflect the experiences of all migrants.
          • ]The asylum ban will put people at serious risk and, like the prior Trump ban, is flatly inconsistent with our asylum laws.[
          • The lawyers said they have not ruled out a request for an immediate injunction.
          • To trigger that exception, however, the new rules require that migrants ‘manifest’ their fears by speaking up, shaking or crying.
        • Bias (90%)
          The author uses language that depicts the Biden administration's actions as a betrayal and a violation of federal law. She also quotes lawyers for immigrant advocacy groups who use similar language in their statements. The author does not provide any counter-arguments or context to challenge these assertions, creating an imbalance in the article.
          • Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer leading the lawsuit, said in a statement: “The asylum ban will put people at serious risk and, like the prior Trump ban, is flatly inconsistent with our asylum laws.”
            • The lawsuit says the restrictions violate federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act by interfering with the right to seek asylum and failing to consider beforehand the harm the restrictions could impose on asylum seekers, among other concerns.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            79%

            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

            What’s Behind Joe Biden’s Harsh New Executive Order on Immigration?

            The New Yorker Magazine Jonathan Blitzer Saturday, 08 June 2024 18:57
            • Unique Points
              • In March 2023, Joe Biden announced an executive order to shut down the border to asylum seekers.
              • , The new policy was under discussion since February after a bipartisan bill to restrict asylum failed in the Senate.
              • , Border arrests in May 2023 were lower than they had been in May 2019 when Donald Trump was President.
              • , Biden was reluctant to claim credit for the fact that the numbers were falling.
              • , Last December, top-ranking officials at the White House and Department of Homeland Security met with a small group of senators to negotiate an asylum bill.
              • , In purely political terms, Republicans gave Biden a lifeline by opposing the bill.
              • , The idea of an executive order had already come up inside the Administration, but there was concern about issuing one unilaterally and getting blocked in federal court.
              • , Biden tried to capitalize on Republican obstructionism by giving a border speech in Texas in February 2023.
              • , Mexico arrested nearly three times as many migrants as it had in the same time frame last year, due to pressure from the US government.
              • , A parole program, which began in January of last year, has admitted thirty thousand people from Venezuela, Haiti, Nicaragua and Cuba each month. This has led to a significant decrease in border arrivals from these countries.
              • , An executive order was planned to limit asylum and direct migrants to seek asylum at ports of entry.
              • , The order is notably harsher than the Senate bill, with lower triggers for suspending asylum processing between ports of entry.
              • , Right now, the daily arrest numbers are around thirty-eight hundred. So, at midnight on Wednesday, the Administration suspended asylum processing between the ports of entry.
              • , Limiting migrants’ ability to seek asylum doesn’t change the overall dynamic of a lack of resources for processing them.
            • Accuracy
              • The new policy was under discussion since February after a bipartisan bill to restrict asylum failed in the Senate.
              • An executive order was planned to limit asylum and direct migrants to seek asylum at ports of entry.
              • Right now, the daily arrest numbers are around thirty-eight hundred. So, at midnight on Wednesday, the Administration suspended asylum processing between the ports of entry.
            • Deception (30%)
              The article by Jonathan Blitzer contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author presents the Biden administration's decision to issue an executive order on immigration as surprising and politically motivated, despite acknowledging that the number of people arriving at the border has been decreasing for three months. The author also focuses on Republican opposition to Democratic legislation, implying that this was a major factor in Biden's decision. However, he fails to mention that Democrats had previously rejected a thirteen-billion-dollar budget request from Biden for more resources to manage the situation and that record numbers of migrants were arriving at the southern border when negotiations began. This selective reporting creates an incomplete and misleading picture of the situation.
              • Republicans refused to fund the D.H.S. budget unless Biden acted to curtail asylum, and now, apparently, the moment of reckoning had arrived.
              • The legislative deadlock on Capitol Hill dominated the President’s rhetoric,
              • The new policy had been under discussion since February, but the dynamic at the border shifted: the number of people arriving started to drop, and has continued to do so for the past three months.
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The author makes an appeal to authority when quoting Alejandro Mayorkas and Todd Schulte. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the situation at the border as a 'threshold moment' and 'crisis'. However, he does not make any explicit fallacious arguments himself.
              • ]The number of migrants were arriving in record numbers[.
              • Record numbers of migrants were arriving at the southern border[.
              • The Senate deal marked an inflection point[.
              • Biden, along with Democratic leadership in the Senate, was acknowledging that something had to be done[.
              • Republicans refused to fund the D.H.S. budget unless Biden acted to curtail asylum[.
              • Instead of playing politics with the issue, instead of telling members of Congress to block this legislation[.
              • The legislative deadlock on Capitol Hill dominated the President's rhetoric[.
              • Plans for an executive order to limit asylum were delayed, but never shelved[.
              • The order is notably harsher than the Senate bill[.
            • Bias (90%)
              The author, Jonathan Blitzer, demonstrates a political bias in this article by repeatedly mentioning the Republican position and their obstructionism regarding immigration policy. He also mentions how Republicans asked for the exact bill that Biden is now criticizing and then rejected it. The author seems to be taking a pro-Democratic stance by highlighting the negative impact of Republican actions on immigration policy.
              • Republicans had filed a lawsuit to block the program,
                • Republicans refused to fund the D.H.S. budget unless Biden acted to curtail asylum,
                  • The legislative deadlock on Capitol Hill dominated the President’s rhetoric,
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication