Mayorkas: We won’t build a wall because it might work by Byron York,
In an appearance on Fox News Sunday , Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the Biden administration’s decision to allow thousands of illegal border crossers into the United States recently in Del Rio, Texas. Stopping them with a physical barrier — a wall or fence — is just not something the administration could “agree” with, Mayorkas said.
“Why did you allow them in the country in the first place?” asked host Chris Wallace. “Why didn’t you build — forgive me, a wall or a fence to stop them from walking — this flood of people coming across the dam, it looks like a highway that allows them to cross the Rio Grande.”
“It is the policy of this administration,” Mayorkas answered. “We do not agree with the building of the wall. The law provides that individuals can make a claim for humanitarian relief. That is actually one of our proudest traditions.”
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
The subtext of Mayorkas’s answer seemed clear: A wall or fence would stop people from crossing the border illegally, which would interfere with their right to “make a claim for humanitarian relief.” So there shall be no wall or fence.
What Mayorkas neglected to say was that the law also prohibits people from entering the U.S. without authorization. Mayorkas conceded that fact last March during a contentious hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee.
“Entering the U.S. between ports of entry is illegal, isn’t that right?” Republican Rep. Dan Bishop asked Mayorkas. “Yes, it is,” answered Mayorkas. “Are you prepared to say right now that it is wrong for people to enter the United States illegally?” Bishop asked at another point. “Of course I am,” said Mayorkas. “So it’s wrong to break the law, right?” said Bishop. “Of course it is,” Mayorkas said.
Mayorkas then told Bishop that the law also allows people “fleeing persecution by reason of his or her membership in a particular social group” to claim asylum in the U.S. “An individual who makes a claim of asylum is not breaking the law by doing so,” Mayorkas said.
So what is the story? The law to which Bishop referred is the part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says, “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. The penalty rises to two years for a second offense.
But the law to which Mayorkas referred to is another part of the Immigration and Nationality Act that says, “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival) … may apply for asylum.” (The asylum law has existed for a long time, but Congress added the “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” part in 1996.) The law also says the U.S. government can designate that the asylum-seeker wait in another country while his or her claim is adjudicated, saying specifically that it must be a country “in which the alien’s life or freedom would not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
None of that applies to the people, almost all of them originally from Haiti, who crossed into the U.S. at Del Rio. Driven mostly by economic motives, they have no legitimate claim to asylum under American law.
And as for the law — simply stating that a person who is “physically present” in the U.S. can apply for asylum does not mean that anyone in the world can and should be allowed into the U.S. The authors of the law clearly did not anticipate mass illegal crossings by people with no right to asylum who are then admitted into the U.S. and allowed to disappear into the country on the premise that they will show up at some later date, sometimes years later, at an immigration proceeding. But the law allows Mayorkas to claim that the Biden administration has a legal responsibility not to stop people from crossing illegally into the U.S. — despite the other section of the law that specifically makes crossing without authorization a crime.
So look for Mayorkas and the Biden administration to continue to claim that they have no choice but to accommodate anyone who wants to cross illegally into the U.S. A wall or fence along the border would reduce those illegal crossings — but that is, apparently, the one thing the administration does not want to do.
Comments are closed.
