The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is Biden Playing a Double Game on Title 42 "Public Health" Expulsions of Migrants?
The Administration claims to want to end the policy. But, as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell points out, it is actually expanding its use.
Officially, the Biden Administration wants to end Title 42 "public health" expulsions of migrants at the southern border, and the flawed recent Supreme Court decision indirectly requiring them to continue was a defeat for the White House. But, as Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell explains in an excellent recent article, Biden may actually be playing a double game here. Even as he says he wants to terminate the policy, he has offered only a tepid legal defense of those efforts, while simultaneously actually expanding the use of Title 42 to cover more people:
"Title 42" is shorthand for what is effectively an abuse of a public health authority to circumvent U.S. asylum laws. Beginning in March 2020, the Trump administration used an obscure public health statute to automatically expel migrants without allowing them to first apply for asylum, as is their right under U.S. law and international treaty….
As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden pledged to restore the integrity of the asylum system. He promised that anyone qualifying for an asylum claim would "be admitted to the country through an orderly process." As president, though, Biden dragged his feet in terminating Title 42. He finally agreed to end the program this past spring. But termination has since been delayed by complicated court rulings, which Biden officials seem to have fought only half-heartedly…..
Instead, Biden officials seem to have seized the opportunity to make yet more immigrant groups subject to automatic expulsions.
In October, the Biden administration announced it would begin using Title 42 to expel Venezuelans, who had previously been exempted due to difficulties in deporting them back to their (unstable) home country. And on Wednesday, Reuters reported that the administration plans to soon use Title 42 to expel Cuban, Nicaraguan and Haitian migrants caught at the southwestern border, too. As had been the case with Venezuelans, these groups have generally not been subjected to the automatic expulsion policy, also largely because of diplomatic complications.
Additional evidence of the administration's foot-dragging is that, while they have appealed a federal Texas district court ruling that blocks termination of the policy, they have not requested that the court of appeals stay the district court decision (which means the latter remains in force as litigation continues). This district court ruling is currently the main legal obstacle to ending the policy. The recent Supreme Court decision ties the administration's hands only in so far as it indirectly allows that district court ruling to remain in place.
Furthermore, the Administration has not initiated a notice and comment process for the rule terminating the expulsions. The district court decision blocking the end of the policy is based on the theory that such a process is required by the Administrative Procedure Act. Whether the APA actually requires the use of that procedure here is debatable. If you believe - as I and many other critics do - that the Title 42 expulsion policy is itself illegal, then it is not protected by the APA. But the Biden Administration (like Trump before it) has taken the position that the policy is legal, which makes it harder (though admittedly not impossible) to defend against the APA claims filed by various GOP state governments. Going through notice and comment would at least have strengthened the Administration's position.
If the Administration is indeed playing a double game, the most likely explanation is that they want to use Title 42 to help alleviate perceptions that there is a crisis at the border. But, as Rampell points out, Title 42 has done little to alleviate the problem, which is actually the result of the lack of legal alternatives for most migrants:
Whatever its intentions, [Title 42] didn't reduce stress at the border; instead, it increased attempted border crossings, as many people expelled without consequence or due process turned right around and tried again to enter the United States….
So what should the administration and Congress be doing instead?
Most important: Create more legal, safe, orderly pathways for people to come to the United States, both to seek protection from persecution and to pursue economic opportunities.
Americans often complain that immigrants should come here "the right way," but for many migrants, showing up at the border unannounced and turning themselves in is the only legal pathway available. If given options to come here that don't require paying gangs and crossing deserts, people would gladly take them — which would in turn alleviate stress at the border.
Among the more obvious steps: Send more resources to border communities, including to the many faith-based organizations assisting migrants. Beef up the asylum system so that cases can be adjudicated more efficiently and expeditiously.
Also, enable asylum seekers to apply for work permits much earlier — currently they must wait six months before they can even submit an application — so they can achieve the financial independence necessary to leave shelters.
Pressure at the border could also be alleviated by empowering state governments that want additional migrants to issue their own state-based visas. The Administration would do well to end the foot-dragging, make a stronger effort to end Title 42, and adopt these ideas instead.
In the meantime, Biden - like Trump before him - is perpetuating a policy that uses public health emergency powers as a pretext for pursuing other ends, undermines the constitutional separation of powers, and inflicts massive cruelty on migrants fleeing poverty and oppression.
The expansion of Title 42 to cover Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans is particularly reprehensible, given that these migrants are fleeing brutally oppressive communist and socialist governments. There was a time when conservatives would have condemned Biden for barring refugees from communism. Today, most of them actually support this step and demand its indefinite continuation.
It would be a mistake to conclude that Biden's immigration policies are just a continuation of Trump's. On many issues, he has made major improvements. But when it comes to Title 42 expulsions, he has perpetuated and in some ways even expanded a cruel and illegal policy he had promised to end.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"If you believe—as I and many other critics do—that the Title 42 expulsion policy is itself illegal, then it is not protected by the APA."
That argument didn't work for DACA.
Exactly. I'm glad someone caught this.
The Administration is acting disingenuously?
[Faints on the couch]
The administration is caught between a rock and a hard place; On the one hand, the left-wing extremists it's trying to humor want unrestricted immigration. OTOH, that's hugely unpopular with the American people, so that just giving those extremists what they want would be politically suicidal.
So they're trying to split the difference, resulting in incoherent policy.
Indeed.
We remember the absolute horror liberals had when 50 or so illegal immigrants were flown to a liberal enclave like Martha's Vineyard.
Meanwhile El Paso is getting nearly 20 times that number of illegal immigrants...per day.
Mrs Judge Smails doesn't like Amurican Caddys in the pool, much less Mexican ones.
The issue is Brett, that the liberal elite like a certain number of illegal immigrants in order to suppress working-class wages. That's why there's no pressure to deport those currently here. But there's a limit even then...too many illegal immigrants will overwhelm services, and potentially cause a dramatic backlash.
Meanwhile the illegal immigrants all want the higher wages, easy immigration, lack of any real risk of being deported, and promise of an amnesty once they are here. So, they're all coming as fast as possible.
Most Americans recognize that Republican cynicism, selfishness, and cruelty are the most important impediments to legislative and executive progress with respect to immigration. Most Americans support compassionate, practical treatment of Dreamers, for example,
America's better elements -- which have encountered and overcome successive waves of ignorance and intolerance with respect to immigration and immigrants, for many years -- will eventually prevail against the voices and forces of ignorance, bigotry, and backwardness. Republicans and conservatives will attempt to thwart progress but will, as has become the American way, fail.
things have changed since you went in the Can Jerry, "W"/Chaney aren't running things anymore, There's been 10 years of Barry Hussein and his more Progressive Gauleiter Senescent J to bring all of the Pro-gressive's dreams to a climax, so don't ask which Repubiclown is keeping the wetbacks on the other side of the Rio Grande, the Taco Bell is tolling for Senescent Jose',
Frank
And yet...once a handful illegal immigrants hit the shores of liberal Martha's Vineyard, they were promptly rounded up, shipped off the island, and to a military camp.
So much for America's "better elements". When push came to shove, their response was "put them in a military camp far away"
Another lie. They were not "rounded up" or "shipped off the island" to a "military camp" "far away." They were voluntarily transported to a nearby place where there were actual services for them.
Sorry...they were "voluntarily" rounded up and shipped off the island to Joint Base Cape Cod, a military facility...
Apparently Martha's Vineyard didn't have the capacity to house a single one....
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/politics/marthas-vineyard-migrants-shelter-desantis/index.html
You sound disaffected, bitter, and nearly delusional, Armchair Lawyer . . . which is precisely how America's betters like their clingers to be.
And you sound like you fully approve of the liberal, white, enclaves removing the minority illegals from their precious shores to a military base, nice and far away across a body of water.
My sense is that people in better, advanced, modern communities have been hospitable and compassionate toward the migrants used as props by bigoted Republicans in states such as Texas and Florida.
Which must bother you, because Republican xenophobes and conservative bigots can't abide decent treatment of migrants -- especially the ones who are not white (or in the case of Cubans, decent prospects to register as Republicans).
Your sense is wrong.
Those "better, advanced, modern communities" like MV quickly managed to round up a handful of illegal immigrants and send them on their way to a nice military base rather than have to actually deal with having the illegal immigrants in their presence.
It's easy to "act" all compassionate and kind when you don't actually have to DO anything. But when handful of illegal immigrants actually hit the shore, the truth came out. They could be compassionate and kind for...3 days. Then...of you go...time to get off our island, it's just too much work. I mean, there's a whole 50 of you people!
Meanwhile those supposed Republican xenophobes have literal thousands of illegal immigrants crossing into their states and cities every day, tens of thousands occupying the city. The "compassionate liberals" couldn't deal with 50 for more than 3 days before they had to shuffle the illegals off to the military camp.
What must really bother you is the truth of how hypocritical your "compassion" is.
What is Martha's Vinyard? A "Food Desert"????
and you know, most prisons/jails would meet your definition.
Please keep posting, you could be the Poster Child for Clueless Pointy Headed Liberals,
Frank
Meanwhile, El Paso is overwhelmed with literal thousands of illegal immigrants pouring in, and hundreds forced to sleep in the streets. Over 80,000 illegal immigrants have been released into the streets of El Paso in the last 6 months. The city only has a population of 678,000. That's one illegal immigrant for every 8 people in El Paso...just in the last 6 months.
I don't see the Biden Administration swooping in there to house them all at military bases. Maybe because El Paso is a minority city in a red state, and not a rich white liberal enclave. I find it telling that MV has to be saved from having just one illegal immigrant for every 300 people...but El Paso has to deal with numbers that are nearly 50 times higher per capita.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/immigration/80-000-immigrants-released-el-paso-border-surge
Most Americans support compassionate practical treatment of Dreamers who were truly brought here as young children and who are contributing members of society. But the way the Dreamer rule was crafted, people who came here (or claimed they came here) when they were 16 were eligible, and could have criminal records and work menial jobs. We don't need these people.
We don't need the half-educated, bigoted, superstitious, disaffected, obsolete residents of most backwater Republican communities, either, but better Americans recognize they should help the less fortunate (subsidies; a lifeline for the smart and ambitious young people who wish to escape the can't-keep-up communities; general improvement of the society).
In the case of immigrants, many of them have a work ethic and general character that gives them a shot to become productive citizens.
You don't think that menial jobs need to be done?
Someone's gotta clean Hunter Biden's hotel rooms
Hazmat team required.
Yes. But they should be done by Americans, not by third worlders at third world wages.
Better Americans have welcomed immigrants to citizenship for more than a century.
We have always had the selfish, ignorant, and bigoted aiming intolerance and ignorance at others. Those deplorable assholes have targeted Italians, Jews, Blacks, Asians, Catholics, the Irish, gays, eastern Europeans, Hispanics, Muslims, other Asians, agnostics, other Hispanics -- most of America, at one time or another. What makes America great is that our better elements overcome the xenophobes and bigots.
Our latest batch of bigots seems nothing special to me. Better Americans will win again. Republicans, conservatives, and bigots hardest hit.
Biden admin not smart enough to play "single" game, much less a double game.
Senescent J would lose at Tic-Tac-Toe if you spotted him 2 "X"s and let him go first.
"But, as Rampell points out, Title 42 has done little to alleviate the problem, which is actually the result of the lack of legal alternatives for most migrants:"
If you don't have money in the bank, you lack legal alternatives to making withdrawals. Does this mean you're justified in robbing the bank?
The simple fact is that most of these people have no legal right whatsoever to enter the US. And that's the case no matter how much you wish the US didn't have borders or immigration laws. Practically nobody arriving at our border has a valid asylum claim in the US, because they'll have passed through someplace else safe along the way. Most of them don't have a valid asylum claim ANYWHERE, because they're not refugees, they're just economic migrants!
Bingo! If they reach some other safe country along the way--which, yes, includes Mexico--I don't see how this is even a debate. I could see a situation where Mexico or some other country asks for our help in alleviating the number of (actual) refugees, but that's not happening. Instead, they're just coming straight here because, as you say, most aren't actually refugees but, rather, economic migrants, who should have to go through the normal immigration process.
I suspect both of you are confusing what the laws and treaties actually say with what you think they should say. Noteworthy that neither of you link to or quote any applicable language.
That is not the law, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.
Is that your expert opinion?
I thought lawyers weren't supposed to ask questions they didn't already know the answers to?? I think you're about as much a "Lawyer" as Arthur/Jerry S Kirtland. is a "Reverend"
Frank "not my real fake name"
Is anyone besides me here having a hard time believing that the Republican wing of the Supreme Court is once again disgracing itself for the cause of helping ol' Joe out?
Although I fully believe they are greedily partisan enough to get played, I just don't see how that could have happened here.
...meanwhile Title 42 or not they just keep coming.
Dammit, this indicision is making my lawn guys all mean and surly (and you don't want to be around a bunch of mean surly Colombians with multiple sharp edged tools/clubs) I can't just use that old "Titulo cuarenta y dos" (Frank knows Colombian) threat anymore when their Siesta goes a little long.
Frank
A few comments here:
1. The policy is legal. COVID was a recognized public health crisis that had many international admissions and immigrations consequences in many countries. Title 42 is specifically designed to deal with public health crises. Professor Somin may not like it, but it was legal for the Trump Administration to invoke it. The situation here is totally different from that administration’s previous attempt to use emergency defense spending authority to divert defense money allocated elsewhere to immigration projects Congress had just refused to fund. The alignment between policy, statute, and facts is much, much clearer and more direct in this situation than in that one. And COVID still has enough effects it is for the political branches, not the courts, to say it’s completely gone away, especially in matters of foreign policy, like immigration, where courts have to be especially deferential.
2. I am not sure the APA requires notice and comment to repeal an emergency foreign-policy related policy. But if the Biden administration really doesn’t want the policy, it would certainly be prudent for it to go through the steps given the litigation that’s been generated.
3. Professor Somin may be right that the Biden administration is playing a double game on immigration by saying it doesn’t want the policy but then effectively defending its legality, failing to start formal repeal steps, and applying it in additional cases.
a. For defending the policy, another interpretation is certainly possible. The Justice department has an obligation to defend federal law as it finds it if it’s defensible, whether it likes it or not. And this policy is certainly defensible. For the reasons I stated above, I think it’s entirely legal.
b. For extending the policy, the adminstration might take the view that with the policy in place it has to apply it fairly, and hence drop exemptions it thinks politically based. There may even be a “Washington Monument strategy” element (where the park service responds to a budget cut by closing the Washington Monument, i.e. the most visible and annoying thing it can do, to try to get people angry at Congress and restore the funding.)
c.. For failing to take formal repeal steps, perhaps the administration thinks doing so would mean it would have to and create a bad precedent tying future administrations’ hands in future foreign policy crises.
d. All that said, But Professor Somin might nonetheless be right about the double game aspect.
Y, you said "I am not sure the APA requires notice and comment to repeal an emergency foreign-policy related policy. "
True but that's not what happened here. The CDC chose to use the rule making process to implement Title 42 in this case. The states' argument is that they therefore must use the rule making process to cancel it. It's either a rule or a dictat, one or the other, they chose rule, now they have to abide by their choice.
It is a double game. As Brett pointed out, the Biden administration has put itself in a difficult situation.
It's been very welcoming to illegal immigrants with its messaging, phrasing, and lack of internal immigration enforcement. Because of that, illegal immigrations know once they get in the US, they get to stay. However, that combined with low US unemployment, and rising wages has created even higher incentives for illegal immigrants to come. So, they're coming...in overwhelming numbers. Overwhelming enough that traditional Democratic bastions...the mayor of DC, the mayor of NYC, etc...are calling the warnings saying they are overwhelmed.
Title 42 is the last hint of a policy that Biden could plausibly use (without reversing himself entirely on his immigration policy and message) to limit the number of illegal immigrants. His other options are...
1. Reverse himself entirely, enforce illegal immigration laws totally, go on actual internal deportation sweeps and more. This would wreck his "pro-immigrant" message.
2. Risk a new level of mass illegal immigration, and the resulting backlash from his core areas, as Democratic cities are overwhelmed, and a resulting loss of support.
A few points needs to be made.
1. There is an alternative option to illegally crossing the border and then trying to claim asylum. You can claim asylum at a port of entry, legally, and properly.
2. The real breakdown is the asylum "system" which illegal immigrants cross the border (illegally), then claim "Asylum" and are then released into the US until their court hearing, often months to years away. In doing so, most get what they really want...admission to the US...for months to years, without needing real justification. This means they can work at the higher US wages (while suppressing US wages). This all assumes the immigrant just doesn't show up to their asylum hearing...and given the large number of people claiming "asylum" who just disappear instead...it's likely.
3. The way to properly avoid this would be as follows.
a. Prompt and immediate hearings
b. Holding onto those who illegally immigrate physically until their asylum hearing.
c. Alternatively/additionally using electronic tagging of these individuals, with prompt and immediate removal if they remove their electronic tags.
Or abolish the asylum law. It is threatening to destroy the USA.
How exactly would "asylum law" "destroy the USA"?
not destroy so much as turn us into North May-he-co
And even if they don't disappear, by the time their court hearing arrives, they'll have likely had "citizen" children on our soil (and at our expense), and will have built a social network. So then the left will say "Now that they've built lives here, it's 'cruel' and 'inhumane' to make them leave after all this time!"
The left played the same game with the "temporary" migrants from El Salvador and Haiti.
It's never temporary, and it's never in good faith.
AL, " and are then released into the US"
I am not any kind of lawyer but my understanding is that this is on its face illegal. US law requires that they be held pending their hearing. DHS doesn't have enough space to hold all the applicants so they let them go in violation of law. The correct answer probably (absent more spending to build more facilities) would be to say to immigrant "sorry, out of room, give us your name and we'll call you when a space opens up". Meanwhile you stay in Mexico/Canada/France/whereever you were when you filed your application. Again all this assumes, as Brett stated above, that the applicants are in a safe country such as Mexico or Canada and therefore not actually in any danger from their repressive "home" government.
"DHS doesn’t have enough space to hold all the applicants so they let them go in violation of law."
IIRC, sue and settle. They arranged to be bound by a consent order forcing them to violate the law.
That would make sense. One of the more infuriating parts of our law. I remember reading an article years ago about this being the modus operandi of the environmental movement. Sue a sympathetic administration, then agree together to whatever it is was wanted, and have a judge issue the consent order.
I've always been puzzled by the reasoning under which the courts, which nominally have the job of ENFORCING the law, are entitled to issue consent orders compelling the government to violate it.
But, of course, this is intended by Congress; They can't, due to the popularity of border enforcement, come out and say so, but they don't want the immigration laws enforced. So they deliberately and systematically underfund the system.
It's not just on the federal level. Roy Cooper pulled the same crap in North Carolina, agreeing to "settle" federal suits against the North Caroline transgender bathroom law. And since the courts use a ridiculous standard for "standing," saying that the legislatures DON'T have standing, it means that all you need is for a sympathetic executive and you can do whatever you want, with the help of a bad faith judiciary stocked with judges appointed by Klinton, Obongo and Pedo Joe.
Heresolong,
It's a devious twisting of the law that allows it. See, they're illegally in the US. But DHS can't hold them forever, until their hearing. And for some reason, they can't actually get a prompt and proper hearing for months...years even. So, they're already in the US (and can't automatically be returned to where they came from, except under title 42, or other special programs), they can't be held onto, so they HAVE to be let loose into the US.
Which is exactly what they want... And then they're told that there will be no enforcement for looking for illegal immigrants in the US.
Theoretically DHS could hold them but Congress hasn't funded that sufficiently. Which would mean more government spending. That was the brilliance of the "Remain in Mexico" policy.
Of course all this assumes that immigration judges would deny them asylum and send them away after all.
If the immigration judges follow the law, then they would deny asylum, as nearly none of them have valid claims.
"lack of legal alternatives for most migrants”
Perfectly legal to stay in their country of origin.
Is no one going to mention the unusual language in the Supreme Court's order keeping Title 42 in place that directly relates to this question?
As Prof. Blackman's post that day immediately pointed out, the Court's 5-4 order contained a pointed comment that while the stay precluded giving effect to the lower court order setting aside and vacating Title 42, "the stay itself does not prevent the federal government from taking any action with respect to that policy." Sounds like at least one of the 5 justices who joined that order insisted such language be included to make clear that the Biden Administration is not required to sit there simply letting Title 42 stay--but can do plenty of other things just like Prof. Somin is saying.