Biden Admin’s New Asylum Rule Is Yet Another Presidential Pivot

Constant course changes raise a concerning question: Who’s behind the wheel?

by James Fite | May 11, 2024 @ Liberty Nation News Tags:  Articles, Good Reads, Illegal Immigration, Opinion

The Biden administration announced a new rule Thursday, May 9, to reject more migrants earlier in the asylum process. Identifying which people are ineligible to enter the US in the initial “credible fear” interview will, according to the Department of Homeland Security, empower asylum officials to more rapidly deport those who aren’t going to be approved. And while it is an about-face on the issue of illegal immigration, it’s far from the first.

The president has reversed course on his public comments and the official policy of the United States on the southern border, Israel’s war on Hamas, and much more, seemingly driven by little more than knee-jerk reactions to public opinion. At this point, the near-constant switching of position has become the rule rather than an exception.

Time to Tighten Up – For Now

“The proposed rule we have published today is yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here,” Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said. As explained in the DHS press release, federal law already prohibits people who pose a national security or public safety risk from asylum. However, that determination is typically made much later in the asylum process, well after the person in question has been in-country.

The new rule change moves up that determination to what’s called the “credible fear screening,” which is when – normally just days after an individual is first encountered – officials determine whether the applicant has a valid reason to seek asylum. DHS also passed the blame for and downplayed the severity of the influx of illegals, of course – so perhaps one can argue this pivot isn’t a total 180. “We will continue to take action, but fundamentally it is only Congress that can fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system,” Mayorkas said in the announcement. Already seeking to minimize negative publicity, the opening paragraph states that the rule will enable DHS to more quickly remove people “even though the number of migrants who are subject to these bars is small.”

“The Biden-Harris Administration has already taken numerous actions to address migration challenges in the region and at our border, while overseeing a historic expansion of lawful pathways,” the press release continues. That’s a far cry from how the administration handled the border crisis in the first few years of Joe Biden’s presidency: pretending it didn’t exist.

A Bad Look for Biden?

But even after the White House was forced to admit to a problem down south, the response was far from consistent. One may recall that, just days before DHS announced the new asylum rule, it was revealed that the Biden administration has been flying migrants up from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela in a mass parole program launched in early 2023. As Liberty Nation reported, more than 400,000 otherwise inadmissible aliens were flown into the country at more than 50 airports across numerous states and the District of Columbia. It was also recently revealed that, despite American citizens being required to show photo ID to get through TSA checkpoints for travel, illegals have been allowed to use actual arrest warrants to verify their identities. Let that sink in a moment: Illegals who are fugitives from the law have been allowed to travel across America using their warrants as IDs without being arrested! And while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is hoping to pass a law to prohibit this, it has been going on since 2022.

So why the change? Could it be that secretly flying in migrants at night and using arrest warrants to verify identity for travel rather than incarceration makes Biden look bad in an election year? According to an April 2024 Gallup poll – released before these two issues dominated the headlines last week – respondents chose immigration as the most important problem facing the US, with the government in general coming in second nine percentage points down. This makes the third month in a row, which is the longest stretch for this particular issue in the past 24 years. Can the president’s latest pivot, this new DHS rule, massage public opinion enough by the time Gallup publishes May’s results to break the trend?

Directionless Diplomacy

Immigration may be the big news of the day, but it’s far from the only issue the president has allowed to be driven by public reactions. The administration seemed unified, initially, in “ironclad” support of Israel after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. In fact, administration officials still use that term – ironclad – explicitly to refer to America’s support of Israel even when announcing a “pause” in weapon shipments.

The president’s “ironclad” support lasted about as long as it took for pro-Palestinian progressives both in and out of Congress and both on and off college campuses around the nation to turn on him. And what was his reactionary response? Call for a cease-fire, accuse Israel of not caring about civilian casualties, and halt the shipment of weapons and ammunition to an American ally embroiled in a war against an enemy that wants to eradicate them entirely.

The constant course corrections in this administration are enough to make one wonder who’s behind the wheel. The answer, it seems, is whoever happens to scream the loudest at President Joe Biden.

 

Read More From James Fite

Olympics: Who Cares?

By Rich Kozlovich, Updated 8/17/2021

 First of all, I no longer watch sports, any sports, including the Olympics, which I think is corrupt scam on the cities and countries hosting them. Secondly,  when sports became political, it stopped being fun.  Why should I care about their clearly historically ignorant, philosophically stupid and hypocritical views?  

The NBA and their activist athletes seem to think China, with all of it's crimes against humanity, organ harvesting, slave labor, genocide, all of which are known, all of which are documented, all of which are provable, is acceptable.  So why is China acceptable to them while they publicly disrespect and protest America as a racist nation deserving to be disrespected?  Because China is a source for a load of money for them!   That's also true of so many major "woke" American corporations and academic institutions.  All of whom have sold their integrity for twelve silver pieces. 

So who exactly does everyone think should be disrespected in light of that?  And in light of that, why should anyone care what they think or say, and why would anyone want to watch them?    

But back to the Olympics where Christopher Chantrill posted this piece, Stress and Mental Health at the Woke Olympics, with his views on women and what they want from life.  Well, I think this must have been a slow day for him part of some kind of writing quota.  My thought was:  Who cares?  A young girl felt overwhelmed by all the pressure to do well.  Maybe she was hurt.  Maybe she just had a bad day.  It's just a sport, so is her backing out so big it makes some real difference in world events and requires all this mumbo jumbo?  It's just sports, and we've made it bigger than it is or should be.

Then we have these "activist athletes" who are using their wins to be publicly disrespectful to America, but fortunately for them they're from America, that "terrible racist nation" and not from Belarus.

Ethel C. Fenig posted a piece about how US hating athletes are getting off easy by comparing US athletes from Belarus. 

First she outlines American athletes:

• Lavender-haired U.S. Olympian flag-protester Megan Rapinoe and her losing women's soccer team will be returning to the country they so unproudly represented and will undoubtedly continue to trash the US.
• Silver medal U.S. Olympian shot put winner Raven Saunders, who protested on the stand as she "raised her arms and crossed them into an X shape," saying it "represented 'the intersection of where all people who are oppressed meet,'" will be returning to the country she so unproudly represented and will undoubtedly continue to trash the U.S. 
• Bronze medal U.S. Olympian hammer throw winner Gwen Berry, who turned her back on the U.S. flag, will be returning to the country she so unproudly represented and will undoubtedly continue to trash the U.S. 

She goes on to say:

Not only will they return to the country they so vehemently criticize, but certain populations in this country will consider them heroes and will praise their actions.  They might even get rich off this negativity, making highly paid personal appearances and speeches.  Oh, sure, many Americans will condemn their actions, but these protesters do not have to fear they will be imprisoned — or worse — by the U.S. government the Olympian protesters hate.  As I commented here:

Then we have sprinter Krystsina Tsimanouskaya of Belarus where public criticism of their country is at best risky.  She criticized her coaches and asked for asylum in order to avoid being forced on a flight back home.  She's made claims that may be true and my not, but she has no desire to go back home because unlike the ungrateful Americans, she will not be treated well.  

Finally we come to the Woke women's soccer team who lost to Canada and will have to fight for bronze, and I wonder just how many Americans care.  One thing I do know is that playing any sport at that level requires a clear head, and it appears to me as all this wokeness not only become a distraction, based on my experience in life, it's probably caused issues within the team.  They're probably done as a meaningful challenge in their sport now, and no loss, but we still come back to this.  

 

Who cares what these spoiled brats think?  

 

If they hate America so badly, why don't they seek asylum in Belarus, China, Cuba, Russia or Venezuela?  No one ever seems to want asylum in those nations.  Why?  If America is so bad and these countries are the system of choice why don't we see lines seeking asylum there?  

 

Odd isn't it that in all of my 75 years of life what I've noticed is athletes from those type of countries keep wanting to find asylum out of those countries, and no one seeking asylum into those countries. And over these decades, America is invariable the preferred country of choice.

 

Imagine that!   

Turnbull to Propose Law That Bans Boat Asylum Seekers from Australia Permanently,

News, October 31, 2016

Federal Labor will look closely at the government’s new tough stance on refugees but says it’s ridiculous that some banned from Australia won’t ever be allowed to visit for business, accusing Malcolm Turnbull of pandering to One Nation. The opposition has not entirely ruled out the government’s proposed lifetime ban on asylum seekers who arrive by boat, instead saying it will look at the legislation before coming up with a position.

Under the plan, all adults sent to offshore immigration centres on Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island would be prevented from ever entering Australia, even as tourists or on business, regardless of whether they’re found to be refugees or not. The coalition is ramping up its attack on Opposition Leader Bill Shorten for not publicly stating a position on the ban within 24 hours of its announcement......The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today told media “the door to Australia is closed to those who seek to come here by boat with a people smuggler”. “That absolutely unflinching, unequivocal message has to be loud and clear,” he told reporters in Sydney this morning...... To Read More....