And Biden must choose whether to perpetuate or help solve the problem.
By Isvett Verde Staff Editor, Opinion |
Early on, the fledgling nation enacted restrictions that targeted anarchists and people with contagious diseases, among others. Later it barred Asian immigrants from entering altogether and enacted a quota system that favored Northern and Western European countries. |
It wasn't until 1965 that the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act ended an immigration admission policy based on race and ethnicity and created a system that favored family reunification and skilled immigrants. In the years that followed, other laws paved the way for the entrance of refugees and created the temporary protective status that has shielded immigrants, mainly Central Americans, from deportation to countries facing armed conflicts or other extraordinary conditions. |
During the Trump years, which brought bans and family separation, there was much hand-wringing about how far we had strayed off course as a nation. This isn't who we are, some argued. But the U.S. immigration system has always been exclusionary, byzantine and imperfect. |
In a guest essay for Times Opinion, Andrea R. Flores explains how Title 42, a pandemic-era rule enacted by Donald Trump that allowed the government to turn away migrants who came to the U.S.-Mexico border, dealt a major blow to asylum seekers. "The global challenges we're facing require a reimagining of the country's immigration framework," she writes. |
To close observers like Andrea, who has spent much of her career working on immigration policy for the Obama and Biden administrations, comprehensive immigration reform appears all but dead. Worse still, President Biden enacted an asylum ban that is in some ways a throwback to the inhumane policies of his predecessor. In July, a federal judge blocked the policy. (A federal appeals court has issued a stay to give the administration an opportunity to appeal.) |
And yet, Andrea argues, there is reason for hope. The Biden administration has also introduced measures that have boosted legal immigration pathways for some migrants. These programs, she explains, represent a model for a better approach. |
"Abandoning our nation's moral commitment to protect asylum seekers is not the way forward," she writes. "Instead, we can give people new legal options to work and reunite with family in the United States." |
Here's what we're focusing on today: |
Forward this newsletter to friends to share ideas and perspectives that will help inform their lives. They can sign up here. Do you have feedback? Email us at opiniontoday@nytimes.com. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment