Federal Judge Criticizes Biden Administration’s Alleged Collaboration with Left-Wing Group to Delay Asylum Rule Decision
A federal judge from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed strong disapproval over the Biden administration’s perceived collusion with a left-wing immigration group on issues related to the administration’s asylum rule. This dissent arises in the context of legal proceedings concerning the administration’s “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule, which seeks to restrict asylum claims for certain individuals.
The Biden administration implemented the “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” rule last year, with the goal of limiting asylum claims for individuals who entered the country unlawfully without first seeking asylum in another nation. Amid ongoing legal challenges and accusations of collusion, Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, appointed during the Trump administration, dissented from a recent decision and rebuked the administration for what he perceived as working in concert with the activist group to delay legal proceedings.
Judge VanDyke voiced his concerns, stating, “At the very least it looks like the administration and its frenemies on the other side of this case are colluding to avoid playing their politically fraught game during an election year.” The judge raised suspicions of potential political motivations behind the administration’s actions, suggesting that they may be trying to evade a legal setback on immigration amid concerns about the border situation, particularly in the midst of an election year. Expressing doubts about the administration’s legal tactics, the judge questioned their sudden shift in defending the rule and proposed that they might be seeking to attribute the practical consequences of their policy choices to the courts. Despite criticisms, worries persist over border security, prompting the Biden administration to contemplate additional executive actions to tackle the ongoing crisis, including utilizing section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act more assertively.
While former President Trump faced legal obstacles when attempting similar measures in the past, President Biden may confront comparable challenges if he pursues similar actions in the future. Reflecting on potential future headlines, Judge VanDyke humorously remarked, “The CNN headline practically writes itself: ‘Biden Immigration Enforcement Policy Struck Down by Two Clinton Appointees.’” The judge’s critical comments could have significant implications for the Biden administration’s approach to immigration policy, triggering discussions concerning transparency, legal strategy, and political considerations in dealing with the border crisis.
As legal proceedings unfold, Judge VanDyke’s critiques may resurface, influencing public conversations and legal debates on immigration policy in the coming months. Against the backdrop of an ongoing border crisis, with illegal immigration and border security at the forefront of public and political discourse, calls for accountability and examination of the administration’s actions and motives related to immigration policy are growing louder. The dissenting judge’s statements might shape public perspectives on the administration’s immigration policies, further fueling the contentious debates surrounding border security and immigration reform.
