For casual observers, President Joe Biden's immigration and asylum policies have been quite confusing. The newly-sworn-in president signed away many Trump-era restrictions on Day One. However, we later discovered that these actions were mostly symbolic. For example, the elimination of the famous Muslim ban was overturned by a broader immigration restriction, which remained in effect through March. Biden's decision to not raise Trump's fiscal year refugee cap caused such anger among his supporters that he decided to reverse course, though too late to admit even close to the new limit of 62,500 refugees. Biden created a task force for family reunification that brought back many separated parents to the U.S. Despite this, Vice President Kamala Harir triggered immediate backlash after she traveled to Guatemala and advised others not to visit the U.S. She apparently didn't care about the fact that asylum seeking is an international and domestic right.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementIs there a pattern to this seemingly random array of decisions? Are there any underlying strategies or are the Biden administration just reacting to circumstances?Some initiatives may be reactive. This is evident in the use of unaccompanied minors to cross the border into the United States at unsafe emergency influx facilities. This was after officials failed adequately to prepare for the expected rise in asylum-seeking children. However, when taken together, the actions and pronouncements of the administrations reveal a long-term and two-pronged vision. This is more apparent when you consider immigration's unique attributes as the most divided area of federal policymaking between domestic and international components. Other high-level decision-making areas fall more along one track. Infrastructure policy is mainly domestic, while defense policy is mostly foreign. So, immigration is very literally divided into two departments: the State Department handles visas from abroad, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees enforcement and processing on U.S. soil.AdvertisementIt is possible for one administration to have two different and seemingly contradictory executive positions in immigration. Biden's case shows this in his dual approach to immigration, which allows for the liberalization of the asylum system domestically and makes it more difficult for anyone else to enter it.AdvertisementBiden's approach is consistent with the moderate Democratic id regarding immigration. It views humanitarian migration not as a problem that cannot be solved humanely but as an issue nonetheless. This view is confusing because we tend not to see immigration agendas as consistent and singular. Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, his policy chief, clearly had a clear hyperrestrictionist line to their domestic and foreign initiatives. They issued executive bans on immigration from abroad and closed off the system internally. They created the "paper wall", a collection of executive regulations that proved to be a formidable barrier for immigrants and would-be immigrants both inside and outside the country.AdvertisementBarack Obama adopted a decidedly neoliberal approach to immigration. He made visa tweaks that were primarily intended to assist entrepreneurs and high-skilled workers, while notoriously increasing domestic enforcement through data in an ill-advised attempt to get Republicans to work with him on immigration legislation. After that failed, Obama switched gears, and issued orders to narrow enforcement categories. He also established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. This program offered temporary protections to children brought to the United States by their parents. It was both a gesture of compassion and a way for them to grant work authorization to large numbers of U.S.-educated youth at a time of growing concerns about an aging population. Obama was the first president to use the influx shelters, family centers and other services that were so controversial in response to the increase in asylum-seekers. He considered it a pragmatic approach that was consistent with his pragmatic and market-friendly approach towards immigration.AdvertisementAdvertisementIt can be confusing because Biden's agendas differ but at first glance seem completely at odds. Domestically, Biden has expressed a desire for adjudication and enforcement systems to be more humane, efficient and less presumptively cruel and labyrinthine. This has been mostly in the form of undoing his predecessor's work, which is slow and cautious, but is clearly moving in the right direction. Recent decisions by Trump-era immigration courts that made it more difficult for asylum seekers to win were reversed by Attorney General Merrick Garland. DHS also gave ICE immigration prosecutors greater discretion to drop cases. This move goes beyond just rolling back the clock to Obama years. While many aspects of the domestic enforcement system are still unacceptable, such as the still-sadistic immigration system, the administration is making tentative steps to close a few of the most notorious private facilities.AdvertisementBiden's grand strategy to stop future humanitarian migration to America, or at least any migration that the government cannot control, is moving faster. Biden's much-publicized effort to address the root causes behind migration will use aid and investment to eliminate the dangers and discontent that drive migrants north. Officials have also been aggressive in pursuing the blueprint for border externalization. They coordinated with Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala to deploy troops along their borders to stop migrants from heading north to the U.S. Special Border Patrol tactical units were reportedly training Guatemalan border personnel.AdvertisementBiden suspended funding and construction of Trump's physical border wall at the U.S.-Mexico frontier, but is now seeking funding to build virtual wall infrastructure. He hopes to replace steel bollards by less intimidating, but more effective drones, sensors and radars. Already, Homeland Security has quietly deployed a biometric surveillance application on potential asylum-seekers. The most striking thing about the Trump-issued Pandemic-Response Order (known as Title 42), which was used to expel migrants quickly and deny them access to the asylum program, is that the administration has not changed it. While the asylum system may become more efficient, charitable, and respectful to due process, migrants will still have to pass a daunting hurdle to get into that system.AdvertisementThis is because Biden sees the danger in humanitarian migration. Although we are already seeing climate migrants arrive at the border, the current numbers don't reflect the number of people who will be forced to flee from future climate disasters and seek refuge in the United States. Biden's two-pronged approach ensures that the Democratic domestic voter base is satisfied with a clearly benevolent local immigration processing system and enforcement infrastructure, while also laying the foundation to block any arrivals he considers unmanageable, despite the law. They won't be treated harshly by the government because they will never reach the United States.AdvertisementAdvertisementThis strategy isn't new, but Europe might offer some insight. After the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the European Union's openness to refugees prompted a backlash similar to that which swept Trump to the presidency in 2016. The leaders of the blocs have responded by working to integrate refugees internally, while preventing additional arrivals. This strategy led to a deal with Turkey that would prevent Greece-bound migrants from reaching their destination. Although human rights groups continue to decry the agreement, it has been in place for over five years and is largely absent from daily political discourse. Even liberal domestic political constituencies can see refugees as abstractions once they are outside their borders.AdvertisementEven seemingly pro-refugeetee initiatives like the expansion of Central American Minors are intended to maximize the administration's control over who can apply for humanitarian protections, when, and who gets them. At the beginning of the administration, Eddie Hasbrouck, a civil libertarian, told me that Homeland Security considered it a terrible defect that people could just show up at border crossings and exercise their right petition for protections. This is why the heavy-handed foreign immigration policy was introduced to try to end that. It also aims to get people to accept that the main problem in obtaining asylum is actually getting to an immigration courtroom.
