老澳门开奖结果

President Biden campaigned on a promise to restore our asylum laws, which allow people who can prove they are fleeing persecution because of their race, religion, political beliefs, nationality, or social group to secure permanent protection in the U.S. He specifically pledged to end a harmful Trump-era policy known as the 鈥渢ransit ban鈥� that unfairly barred asylum for vulnerable migrants fleeing danger who did not apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S. southern border. But Biden recently announced plans to revive key features of that policy, along with aspects of another Trump ban that illegally blocked asylum for people who entered the country without going through an official border crossing.

These policies are harmful and illegal. The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.

The right to seek asylum, guaranteed in U.S. law, stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II. It reflects our nation鈥檚 commitment to protect people in need of refuge, and to prevent the forced return of vulnerable people into harm鈥檚 way. Congress designed our asylum laws to ensure that everyone escaping persecution has a chance to seek safe harbor here, regardless of how they must flee danger or enter the country.

The administration must recognize how bad it looks to bring back an anti-immigrant Trump policy from Stephen Miller鈥檚 playbook, especially one that multiple courts found to be unlawful. Despite the administration鈥檚 efforts to distinguish its proposal from Trump鈥檚, they share a common core, which is to punish people for not requesting asylum in the countries they must travel through to reach the U.S., like Mexico and Guatemala. This ignores the obvious reason why so many do not seek asylum there: These countries do not offer real sanctuary for migrants fleeing persecution.

The administration鈥檚 own records, alongside , make it painfully clear that these countries have not developed working asylum systems and that, for many migrants, it would be pointless and life-threatening to stay and apply. Critically, our courts have long recognized that a person鈥檚 decision not to seek asylum while in transit to the U.S. has no bearing on their need for protection.

This means that, like Trump鈥檚 rule, Biden鈥檚 proposal would send people facing persecution back to danger and bar asylum even to those people with the strongest claims. This includes people like a Cameroonian refugee who was under Trump鈥檚 transit ban, despite being brutally tortured by his country鈥檚 military for being an independence activist.

Biden has that his proposal is different because the administration has separately created programs that allow people from four countries to apply in advance for temporary permission to come to the U.S. However, they only apply to a small number of nationalities and have limited capacity. They also require that applicants have a U.S. financial sponsor, a passport, resources to pay for a costly plane ticket, and the ability to wait for the application鈥檚 approval 鈥� the very things that the most vulnerable asylum seekers lack.

The core concept of asylum is that a person has an urgent need for protection 鈥� often from their own government. Although the new programs will benefit those who qualify, they are not a realistic option for many people who cannot ask their persecutor for travel permission or who are unable to wait in dangerous conditions while applying for approval, let alone those who lack financial sponsors and resources of their own.

The administration has also suggested that the potentially deadly impact of the proposed ban will be mitigated because migrants may be able to access asylum if they make a border appointment through an application on their phone. But this policy echoes Trump鈥檚 first asylum ban, found unlawful by the courts, that also barred people who entered the U.S. without going through an official border crossing. This approach disregards a key reality asylum seekers face in pursuit of safety.

The most vulnerable asylum seekers, who are frequently poor and who may speak neither English nor Spanish, are often those least likely to have the resources or capability to use a in a foreign language or in danger for an appointment. This is precisely why our laws prioritize protection and allow individuals to be considered for asylum regardless of how they enter or arrive in the country.

Biden鈥檚 proposed tweaks to Trump鈥檚 asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can. It would leave many of the most vulnerable asylum seekers in the same position as Trump鈥檚 bans did 鈥� unfairly denied critical, permanent protection for reasons that have nothing to do with their need for refuge.