Biden Defies Immigration Law

President Biden’s refusal to enforce U.S. immigration laws, and his determination to open the U.S. southern border, is a level of lawlessness not previously seen in any prior White House Administration.

Pew Research reports that “The U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2021 fiscal year, more than quadruple the number of the prior fiscal year and the highest annual total on record. The number of encounters had fallen to just over 400,000 in fiscal 2020 as the coronavirus outbreak slowed migration across much of the world. But encounters at the southwest border rebounded sharply in fiscal 2021 and ultimately eclipsed the previous annual high recorded in fiscal 2000, according to recently published data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the federal agency that encompasses the Border Patrol… The Trump administration began expelling migrants in March 2020 under a public health order aimed at limiting the spread of COVID-19.”

In April, the Biden administration doubled down on its determination to hike illegal immigration when it announced the end of Title 42 at the border, effective May 23. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reforem, (FAIRUS) “Title 42 is a public health order in place since March 2020 that allowed immigration agents to turn away more than half of all border-crossers, citing the danger of the potential spread of COVID-19 within the United States. Ending Title 42 will have disastrous consequences at the border, with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials preparing for more than 500,000 illegal border crossers within six weeks of terminating the policy.

Further emphasizing it support for illegal immigration, published sources are now reporting that Biden is considering issuing government identification (ID) cards to border crossers and illegal aliens who are set for release into American communities as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) expansive “catch and release” operation.

Almost immediately after being sworn in, the Biden White House assaulted compliance with Immigration laws. It employed directives to agencies and other actions to unlawfully end complaince with existing law.

It did far more than just ignoring the law. It attacked U.S. Border Patrol personnel for merely doing their job. It created a fiction that mounted agents were “whipping” illegals. Despite the fact that the charge was absolutely proven to be false, the White House nevertheless demanded punishment for the innocent agents.

At first, the White House received some support from Democrat elected officials. Now, however, in the face of a tidal wave of illegals overwhelming local governments, objections from elected officials from the President’s own party are sounding alarms. New York Mayor Eric Adams has expressed concern that the new arrivals are straining his city’s social safety net. Similar worries have been expressed by District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser, who pointed out the dire impact on homeless shelters and other municipal facilities.

Substantial responses from state officials have erupted. In September, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody took legal action against the Biden administration for ignoring federal immigration law. She notes that “According to federal law, arriving immigrants, including those claiming asylum, are required by law to be detained while immigration courts determine if there is a valid basis to enter the United States. As a result of the Biden administration’s illegal abdication of duty, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has already released more than 225,000 illegal border crossers this year… The Biden administration’s brazen disregard for federal immigration law is jeopardizing the safety and security of our state and nation…Biden’s border policy is an open invitation to dangerous criminals, human traffickers and drug traffickers to enter the United States—creating a crisis at the Southern Border like we have never seen. Because Biden is not requiring those crossing the border to go through the legally mandated channels, they are coming into our country without being properly processed…The federal government cannot simply ignore federal laws because it does not agree with them politically.”

Six Texas counties and one city have declared an invasion at the southern border.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.