The policies the GOP are pointing to either didn't change at all or lifting them had no effect on the border.

- Just 1.19% of people encountered since March 2020 were put into MPP. Zero were subject to an asylum agreement.
- Biden has made no changes to Title 42 practices. None.
The argument that Biden's *policies* have led to more people coming to the border is laughable and those like @ByronYork who make it expose primarily how little they're tracking the actual details of border policy and just regurgitating talking points.
On the other hand, the argument that Biden's *rhetoric,* both pre- and post-election, have caused more people to come is harder to debunk. It may well have. But Biden can't go back in time and unsay things. And the pro-immigrant rhetoric is basically Reaganesque, for god's sake!
If the argument is "Biden did a specific thing and that's caused more people to come", that's completely misguided. If the argument is "Biden is just too friendly," then what is he supposed to do? Be more performatively nasty? Come on. And he's already saying "don't come!"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ReichlinMelnick

12 Apr
It takes a lot of chutzpah to file a lawsuit in the 9th Circuit arguing that the Biden administration is required by law to resume a program that the 9th Circuit has already ruled is illegal. Let's see how that goes for them.
Also, hahaha good luck on a NEPA challenge on these issues. Brnovich really going for a slap-down here.

I'd be remiss not to note that "immigrants cause environmental harm" is literally the argument that led eugenicist John Tanton to start his network of anti-immigrant groups.
The extent to which @GeneralBrnovich's lawsuit adopts the rhetoric of hate groups like NumbersUSA cannot be understated. "Population control" is at their eugenicist heart, including calls for immigration restrictions on environmental grounds.

Brnovich is now making those claims.
Read 5 tweets
9 Apr
It is beyond patronizing to say that it's "cruel" to let people in because being in limbo for five years due to a broken immigration system is somehow worse that being completely blocked and left to the wolves.
"Well, on the one hand, you might starve to death/be killed in your home country. On the other hand, being stuck in limbo for five years is genuinely awful. So let's just turn you away to save you the limbo."

Come. On.
Never forget that Andrew Sullivan, champion of immigration restrictions, committed immigration fraud to get a visa (lied about being gay, which was at the time a ground of inadmissibility) and used his connections to get out of a marijuana charge that threatened his green card. Image
Read 8 tweets
8 Apr
With full March border numbers out, I want to re-up and update this thread for any reporters who are writing on the news out of CBP today.

We continue to see two very different phenomena occurring at the border, and it's very important to distinguish between the two!
Single adults continue to be the biggest driver of headlines about "border numbers."

Apprehensions of single adults are going back to the 1990s-2000s, driven by many people crossing repeatedly thanks to Title 42. And like back in the day, almost all get sent back to Mexico.
When it comes to family units, we have seen a distinct increase in families beginning in January. This seems driven both by Mexico's refusal to accept many families that Trump/Biden wanted to expel, as well as a sense that now is the time. It's looking a lot like 2019.
Read 9 tweets
8 Apr
What a great article on TPS! Also so important to highlight, as @RepMcGovern notes, that "T.P.S. was a response to America’s foreign policy in El Salvador and to its discrimination against Salvadoran refugees..."

We keep trying to run from the consequences of our decisions.
Seriously, such a fantastic article. This passage quoting Maureen Sweeney is so important to understand WHY strong asylum protections were put into the law in 1996, laws that many now call "loopholes." Because the Reagan administration just flagrantly turned away asylum seekers.
When discussing "what's happening at the border" I've started making brief historical detours to the Reagan Administration's flagrant attacks on Central American refugees, because that *recent history* has an enormous impact on the laws, policies, and trends of today.
Read 4 tweets
2 Apr
Strong circumstantial evidence in this piece that Robert Law was heavily involved in creating the Kafkaesque blank spaces policy, where asylum applicants who failed to write "N/A" in every single space, no matter how irrelevant or inapplicable, had their applications rejected.
Robert Law was the government relations director at @FAIRImmigration, an anti-immigrant hate group, before he became head of the @USCIS policy shop under the Trump administration. After Biden won he left and joined @CIS_org, FAIR's sister group.
Read this language and remember it came from someone who was put in charge of policy for the United States' legal immigration benefits agency.

It's filled with outrageous presumptions that almost all claims are fraudulent and "illegal aliens" shouldn't receive benefits at all. For example, the system is overrun with fraudulent, frivolou
Read 5 tweets
2 Apr
EOIR has rolled back some, but not all, of the changes from last November's "case processing flow" memo.

Big difference? No longer required to file both pleadings and relief applications. Now it's pleadings first, then relief applications 60 days after removability established.
Here are the key paragraphs on operational rules under the new memo. The big differences between the old one and new one are several additional nods to judges' discretion to set their own scheduling, and two separate schedules for removability and applications for relief.
The memo sets a new and hilariously short 90-day timeline for merits hearing, with a massive "subject to docket availability" line which means that the 90-day schedule will be in most cases anywhere from 2-4 years.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!