Introduction
At the outset of COVID-19, the Trump administration enacted a Title 42 expulsion policy that sought to restrict migrants’ entry to the US. As directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the policy would curb the spread of COVID-19 by controlling cross-border mass movement. The implementation of Title 42 prevented immigrants from seeking asylum in America. Although the border control took in some migrants, most of them are sent back to their origin countries or neighboring nations. The expelled migrants face dangerous conditions including kidnapping, torture, sexual assaults, poor health, and even death. After several federal suits and congress debates against the Act, the Biden administration has decided to terminate Title 42 thus allowing migrants to seek asylum. While some people support this decision, others are criticizing it, citing the increased number of immigrants to the US. The ICE and other border control officials are tightening COVID-19 prevention measures and asylum-seeking requirements to control the number of migrants entering the country. Although there are valid concerns, the decision to terminate Title 42 expulsion is right because America has an international duty to protect asylum seekers.
The Problem
Title 42 expulsion policy is a wrong use of Title 42 Public Health Act of 1944. The Public Health Service Act of 1944, coded as Title 42 mandated the US public health service to prevent the transmission, spread, and introduction of communicable diseases from foreign nations into the country (Beckett et al. 1). The law thus allowed border control officers to deny entry to the state, to foreign individuals coming from countries with such diseases. The Trump administration amended the Act to accommodate the expulsion of immigrants seeking asylum on the Mexican and Canadian borders (Beckett et al. 1). Although the CDC supported the policy as a way of controlling the spread of COVID-19, the act was politically developed to prevent Mexican and Canadian immigrants from entering the United States.
The implementation of Title 42 law has so far seen to the deportation of more than a million migrants. On March 20th, 2020, the CDC director, Robert Redfield signed and invoked Title 42 policy prompting the US. border officials to deport migrants without legal documentation (Beckett et al. 2). The rationale for this decision was to protect the border agents from COVID-19, control the spread of the virus in the border facilities, and preserve related medical resources. According to government statistics at the end of February 2022, at least 1.7 million migrants have been expelled (Beckett et al. 2). Although the law applies to both the Mexican and Canadian borders, the Canadian borders have limited the rate of the process, hence deporting 15, 000 migrants in the two years (Beckett et al. 3). When Redfield initiated the order, it was to be enacted for only 30 days. However, it was then extended for the next month and later indefinitely.
Although the act was passed under public health justifications, top experts objected to it stating that such deportation was against the immigration law practices. Some major experts in the border control authority did not believe that the unprecedented policy was justifiable (Cayanan 107). Indeed, they referred to the policy as an expulsion order which contradicts the immigration law. Title 42 imposes further penalties on the deported including multi-year banishment from entering the US. The continuing restriction practices have faced several criticisms and lawsuits seeking to stop Title 42. According to Cayanan, the United States has a history of weaponizing infectious diseases to racially discriminate against immigrants and justify unfair treatments (107). In 1920, the US government targeted Mexicans in Los Angeles, associating them with pneumonia, stereotyping them as poor second-class people, and later quarantining them (Cayanan 108). Recently, former President Trump suggested that accepting Haitian migrants is like signing a death wish because they had AIDS and intended to infect Americans (108). These are among many other cases where the US government used diseases as weapons against immigrants.
In 2020, several groups concerned about the safety of deported immigrants opposed Title 42. Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, American Civil Liberties Union, RAICES, Oxfam America, and ACLU of the District of Columbia sued the Trump government over the deportation of refugee families (Cayanan 110). In 2021, these opposing groups sued the Biden administration seeking to terminate Title 42. Public health experts also, including some CDC officials have cast doubt on the policy’s relationship with health (Cayanan 112). In other words, the recent decision to terminate the act was pushed by criticism, opposition, and lawsuits against its implementation.
Effects of Title 42 on Immigrants
The denial of asylum exposed the refugees to more health dangers. The Title 42 order sought to avoid holding migrants in congregation settings to avoid the spread of Coronavirus. However, the implementation of this order made the refugees more vulnerable to the disease. In 2020 and 2021, the migrants were expelled after spending a few nights in crowded settings where the risk of infection was high (Montoya). The migrants were then sent back to their origin countries using the same planes that carried ICE detainees, known to have COVID-19. On top of the emotional distress caused by the detainment and expulsion, the migrants were sent away without resources to manage the disease (Montoya). Furthermore, most of these people were returned home without their documentation or belonging. These among other related actions put the health and well-being of the migrants at risk.
Title 42 has had dangerous impacts on the migrants on the border. Depending on their nationality, refugees on the Southwest border are either sent back to Mexico or detained in the US. Mexico based on the agreement they had with America in 2020 takes in migrants from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Montoya). During the expulsion, the migrants from these nations are left at the nearest port of entry and told to work in Mexico. The Mexican border cities and towns are known to be dangerous and as the refugees walk past these regions, they risk their lives. The border to the State of Tamaulipas and where some migrants return was classified as a level 4 threat risk, like war-torn nations in 2018 by the U.S state department (Montoya). Non- Mexicans who are taken in by Mexico are then sent to their countries of origin, where they are persecuted and at times tortured to death. Refugees running from their governments and local gangs have nowhere to run to upon deportation.
More harm has been subjected to the migrating families, including children. According to Montoya, by March 15, 2022, there have been almost 10, 000 reported cases of abduction, extortion, and sexual assaults against adults and children expelled from the US. Some asylum seekers, trying to avoid deportation put their lives at risk. They would cross the border between ports of entry hence risking injury or death by dehydration or drowning (Montoya). Haitians, the LGBTQI community, and other black refugees face horrendous and dangerous conditions such as discrimination and violence.
Many asylum seekers especially women expelled by the Title 42 orders have been kidnapped. Migrants sent to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is at high risk of being kidnapped and serve as a source of income for some organized crime groups (Leutert 1). When the US borders officials deport asylum seekers to Mexico, some are sent to Nuevo Laredo, a highly prevalent crime region. The kidnapping of refugees is not a new activity in this Mexican city. According to Leutert, the Nuevo Laredo criminal abducts people traveling north seeking to enter America as well as those being sent back (1). In 2020 and 2021 alone, at least 39 people, sent back by the Title 42 order were kidnapped (1). This number is added to other 65 cases or 139 people kidnapped after the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers refused to take them for asylum in the past few years (Leutert 1). Indeed, abduction of refugees is common in Nuevo Laredo to the point that the gang members expect the migrants to “pass by the office,” as another name for abduction.
Doctors without borders in Mexico also affirm the high rate of abduction in Nuevo Laredo. According to these doctors, 75% of refugees waiting for an asylum hearing in Mexico in Nuevo Laredo had been kidnapped by mafias and 45% of them had either been violated or exposed to violence (Leutert 5). Although the Mexican authorities put the refugees in safe houses, the organized crime gangs know exactly where to find them. Abducted women are raped and later sold to human traffickers (Leutert 3). Other than Nuevo Laredo, asylum seekers also suffer from life-threatening conditions while in Mexican custody. In other words, when refugees come to the US border seeking protection, they are sent to face death in Mexico and other countries of their origin.
Major Solution
The most suitable solution to this problem is to terminate the title 42 Act. Ending Title 42 will allow the migrants to seek refuge in form of asylum in the United States. On 1st April 2022, the US President, Joe Biden announced the decision to end Title 42 policy by May 23 (Sargent and Paul). The supporters of this decision felt that it was right and long overdue. By removing the order preventing refugees from seeking asylum, America will be registering an increased number of immigrants. It will also mean that the nation will be fulfilling its international responsibility to protect refugees running from political conflicts. America has always been a safe haven for refugees hence ending the expulsion order will continue to make the country more accommodative.
Following the declining rate of COVID-19 infections in the US and the rest of the world, CDC affirms that expulsion of migrants is no longer necessary. In a long report of rationale, CDC highlighted an increased level of vaccination among Americans and immigrants (Sargent and Paul). Reduced COVID-19 cases and possible hospitalization of Omicron patients, and availability of other control measures such as testing in the country also supports the decision. Further explaining the act of termination of Title 42, health officials mentioned that they set the implementation date on 23rd May to allow border officers to be ready. The given time will allow the border patrol officers to expand public health measures such as vaccination and testing to accommodate a high number of asylum seekers. By late May, the government hopes to be vaccinated up to 6, 000 refugees in a day (Sargent and Paul). Such an assertion indicates the country will be expecting many migrants in a day.
The Implications of Ending Title 42
Allowing refugees to seek asylum will protect migrants from various dangers. By taking them in, the US government will prevent kidnapping, violence, sexual assault, discrimination, torture, and death faced by deported migrants (Sargent and Paul). Indeed, the Biden administration will provide a home for those running from gangs and corrupt governments. Such acts will cover the refugees from possible persecution and death. The asylum seekers will also have a chance to live together with those with families. Until recently, the Title 42 policy ordered the separation of parents from their children. When the termination order is enacted, parents will have a chance to live with their children in a safe environment (Sargent and Paul). The immigrants will also have an opportunity to live a healthy life and grow economically. Some asylum seekers are facing health problems and require immediate medical attention. Others, on top of migrating stress, have chronic diseases that put their lives at risk. Furthermore, immigrants will use their skills to grow themselves and the economy of America.
Terminating the expulsion order around the border will increase the number of migrants entering the United States. As of the end of March 2022, at least 7, 000 asylum seekers were entering America in a day (Sargent and Paul). Homeland Security officials predict that in worst-case scenarios, the country will be receiving between 12, 000 and 18, 000 refugees in a day (Montoya). Consequently, the administration is preparing more border patrol personnel, expanding capacity at processing regions, and contracting more airplane and bus operators to transport the asylum seekers. However, before 23rd May, more migrants are still likely to be deported. From 23rd May, the US government will struggle to quickly deport migrants who do not qualify for asylum, especially when using the normal deportation system.
Criticisms of the Solution
The decision to terminate Title 42 has received much criticism and opposition that may cause litigation to stop it. On 3rd April, two days after the announcement, Republican officials from Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the end of Title 42 (“Three States Sue”). The party members told the federal judge that the termination should be paused because CDC did not sufficiently justify its latest judgment. According to a report by Al Jazeera, the three states argue that ending the pandemic-era restriction will lead to an unprecedented crisis at the Southwest border (“Three States Sue”). In defense, the Missouri attorney general Eric Schmitt mentioned that Title 42 is essential in controlling the influx of aliens at the southern border (“Three States Sue”). This is one of the many comments making it clear that the expulsion order was not health-based but for other selfish and hostile reasons. Some democratic leaders especially from Arizona have urged the Biden administration to put the decision on hold to adequately prepare for the expected surge in asylum seekers.
The White House’s move to end Title 42 is the most unpopular decision yet. Since President Biden was sworn in as the US president, he has made decisions that were not acceptable to the public but this is the most undesired. According to Al Jazeera, 56% of Americans feel that removing pandemic-era border controls is critically wrong (“Three States Sue”). They hold that America is not ready to host millions of immigrants following the adverse effects imposed by the ongoing health crisis. Others state that although the decision is compassionate enough, it should not be hasty. A sizeable number of the 56% feel that the government should instead toughen the asylum requirements to only take those that are in critical need of protection.
Alternative Solution
Another possible solution is to toughen asylum requirements with the border patrol offices. While lifting the Title 42 order of expulsion, the US government can toughen the asylum-seeking conditions to control the number of asylum seekers. An increased number of immigrants in the US is a concern for all people, both supporters, and opposition (“Three States Sue”). The American economy is already weak due to the effects of COVID-19 and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Therefore, the Biden administration should adjust the requirement for asylum qualifications. For example, while Ukraine citizens may receive an instant pass, a Mexican, Haitian, or any other nation without ongoing political war may need to meet certain conditions for approval. For example, people running from their origin nations because of gangs and government-related conflicts should have their information confirmable. Those seeking refuge due to expanding their careers or lack of food resources could be provided with such help from their countries. In other words, while the US government has the mandate to offer asylum to migrants, their reasons for leaving their countries should be genuine and impossible to solve from their nations.
The need to protect asylum seekers may require a tougher decision than just lifting Title 42. Several Democratic leaders have agreed that although it is the right thing to do, the US government may not be ready for the outcome. As they end the act, decision supporters want the government to extend the time for effective termination to prepare for immigration accommodation. The government should also increase their intervention measures with the Western Hemisphere countries to reach the roots of migration. Working with these countries to find a solution to migration needs would reduce the number of asylum seekers in the US.
Conclusion
The United States government has to protect asylum seekers from predatory dangers. Migrants leave their countries for either criminal or safety reasons. Thus, while lifting the Title 42 policy, the border patrol officials must tighten their gears about who qualifies for asylum. Considering the expected high number of asylum seekers, the Biden administration might need more time to be prepared. Allowing refugees to seek asylum will help protect them from dangers such as death, torture, abduction, violence, and sexual assault. America has in the past benefited from the presence of immigrants, especially in the boosting of the economy. Other than looking at what the immigrants will come to take from the country, US citizens should also look at what the high number will bring in terms of labor and talent. The final decision about Title 42 still rests with the Biden administration.
Works Cited
Beckett, Anne G., et al. “Misusing Public Health as a Pretext to End Asylum—Title 42.” New England Journal of Medicine, 2022, pp. 1-3.
Cayanan, Jayson. “The Twin Crises of Public Health and Immigration: Assessing the Title 42 Order.” Chicago Policy Review, 2022, pp. 107-127. Web.
Leutert, Stephanie. “Migrant Kidnapping in Nuevo Laredo during MPP and Title 42.” 2021, pp. 1-16. Web.
Montoya, Camilo. “What is Title 42, the COVID-19 Border Policy Set to End in Late May?” CBS News, 2022, Web.
Sargent, Greg, and Paul Waldman. “Opinion: An abject Biden failure on immigration should prompt a real rethink.” The Washington Post, 2022, Web.
“Three States Sue Biden Administration over Ending Title 42 Policy.” Al Jazeera, 2022, Web.