Biden's Border Policy: A New Face, Same Restrictive Approach
Echoing Trump, Biden bars unlawful entrants from asylum, intensifies scrutiny.
Yesterday, June 4, 2024, President Joe Biden spoke about his new border policy, stating that he is “announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving asylum. Migrants will be restricted from receiving asylum at our southern border unless they seek it after entering through an established lawful process.
The action sounds more like former President Donald Trump’s actions while president, as both policies restrict asylum claims based on the method of entry. Regardless, this policy of barring asylum seekers based solely on their method of entry, is a contradiction to the principle of free movement and many would argue for a reduction of bureaucratic barriers and allowing a more streamlined process for all asylum seekers, regardless of their entry point.
Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee, suggests a “return to an Ellis Island style of processing immigrants. It should be simple for those who wish to come here to work and build a better life to appear before immigration officials at an accredited port of entry, be given medical and criminal checks to assess their safety, and receive a visa allowing them to immediately find employment. This is a process that should take, at most, days; not months or years.”
Reform Party candidate, Robert F. Kenney, Jr. states “The first step toward fixing this situation is to reassert control over our border. Today there is no control, no effective policy, and, as a result, there is a humanitarian, security, and economic disaster.
There are two ways people enter this country illegally. One way is by sneaking in. The other is by simply walking across at an entry point, claiming asylum, and disappearing. We have to address both. If we only shut down the asylum route, they will sneak across instead. If we only seal the border, they will overwhelm asylum processing resources. We must end both simultaneously. To accomplish this, the Kennedy administration will pursue the following policies.”
Meanwhile, Green Party candidate, Jill Stein offers that the“border policy should move away from detention and enforcement response toward humane and effective asylum processing. This includes full support and funding for coordinated civil society response including social and legal service providers. Instead of jailing migrants and asylum seekers, we will create non-custodial, humanitarian reception centers at the border. Migrants should be processed rapidly to screen for significant criminal records. Once processed, migrants should have papers to begin work immediately, making them an invaluable resource for communities.”
The new policy is an affront to individual freedom, regardless of one’s nationality, and increases government controls and bureaucracy. Many feel that we should support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade and the movement of humans at the border. Political freedom and escape from tyranny (asylum) demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Many in the United States believe that economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
The new policy suggests the U.S. government knows how legitimate one’s need for refuge is or is not without investigation; thereby arbitrarily denying the best in human potential from entering the United States. This leads to additional militarization at, and within 100 miles of the border, an increase in scrutiny, and expanded surveillance of not just potential immigrants, but also of U.S. citizens residing and traveling near the border.
This type of heavy-handed border policy often leads to invasive policies like checkpoints well into the United States (not just at the border), mandatory identity verifications for U.S. citizens, and additional suspicion and control of our citizenry. These intrusions undermine the liberty of the individual, creating an environment where freedom is sacrificed on the altar of security.
In addition to the militarization near our border, often over 100 miles inside our border, we must consider the impact these new restrictions will have on our economy, as it will restrict trade and reduce the amount of labor available throughout the U.S. Afterall, a free market requires the free movement of people, not just products and ideas.
A few things we could do that would help the situation is to:
Streamline the process at the border with an expansion in the use of magistrates to process immigration applications, making it easier and quicker for individuals to enter the country lawfully to start working and start businesses. This way, the government can focus resources on genuine security threats rather than those simply seeking a better life.
Establishing clear, fair, and expedited procedures for asylum seekers ensures that those fleeing persecution can find refuge without enduring prolonged uncertainty. This approach aligns with the principle of protecting individuals from oppressive regimes.
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash As noted by the Libertarian Party, “Whether they are from India or Mexico, whether they have advanced degrees or very little education, immigrants have one great thing in common: they bravely left their familiar surroundings in search of a better life. Many are fleeing extreme poverty and violence and are searching for a free and safe place to try to build their lives. We respect and admire their courage and are proud that they see the United States as a place of freedom, stability, and prosperity.
Of course, if someone has a record of violence, credible plans for violence, or acts violently, then Libertarians support blocking their entry, deporting, and/or prosecuting and imprisoning them, depending on the offense.
Libertarians do not support classifying undocumented immigrants as criminals. Our current immigration system is an embarrassment. People who would like to follow the legal procedures are unable to because these procedures are so complex and expensive and lengthy. If Americans want immigrants to enter through legal channels, we need to make those channels fair, reasonable, and accessible.”
