The problem is that the provision you cite is superseded by asylum law. This is why Di Martino made the point that migrants now don't try to evade the border patrol - instead they cross illegally, find a border patrol agent, and present themselves as asylum seekers.
1182(f) can apply to migrants apprehended at the border, but not to those who present themselves and reqest asylum.
I don’t see anything limiting enforcement to the border, or to asylum seekers, the law is quite broadly drafted, it applies to aliens - people without citizenship or legal status - and an asylum seeker is not the same as someone who has been granted asylum. A request for a legal status does not confer that status. So no new law is needed, the existing law needs to be enforced.
The problem is that USC 1158 is similarly broadly worded.
"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 and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
*ANY* alien who is physically present in the US or who arrives in the US whether or not at an offical port of entry may apply for asylum.
That means an alien who crosses the border illegally, presents himself to an asylum officer, and claims that he has a credible fear of persecution in his country of origin gets to have his claim adjudicated, which often takes years.
There are some exceptions but the law is what it is.
What Trump did in his final year was to announce that anyone who tried that move would immediately be expelled via a different law and process, Title 42, in which asylum applications would not be accepted due to the health emergency (Covid). In one sense that worked - asylum seekers were being expelled immediately without being allowed to apply for asylum - but it had its own problems. Title 42 was a "no harm no foul" type of process: migrants weren't penlized for crossing illegally, they were just expelled, and so there was nothing stopping them from attempting to come in again, which many did.
The lawful authority for Title 42 was ended at some point during the Biden Admin, in response to Covid being over and lafter osing some legal cases.
Some changes to law that would be beneficial are: 1) changes to the system of processing asylum applications so that adjudication of claims can happen much faster, within days/weeks instead of years; 2) more resources to the border (more border patrol officers, more asylun officers, more immigration judges), 3) giving the President authority/requirement to pause accepting asylum applications when the number of migrant encounters at the border gets too high. These are all things addressed in the Lankford bill.
"May apply" does not mean the status is automatically granted. If that were the case, that application confers the status, there would be no need for the application. That should be obvious, except for obstructionist Democrats. If it were the case that simple application confers the status, then the act of applying for a driving license would mean that the applicant would be immediately allowed to drive - same case for a license to practice law, or medicine. And that just isn't the case.
The problem is that the provision you cite is superseded by asylum law. This is why Di Martino made the point that migrants now don't try to evade the border patrol - instead they cross illegally, find a border patrol agent, and present themselves as asylum seekers.
1182(f) can apply to migrants apprehended at the border, but not to those who present themselves and reqest asylum.
This is why laws do need to be changed.
I don’t see anything limiting enforcement to the border, or to asylum seekers, the law is quite broadly drafted, it applies to aliens - people without citizenship or legal status - and an asylum seeker is not the same as someone who has been granted asylum. A request for a legal status does not confer that status. So no new law is needed, the existing law needs to be enforced.
The problem is that USC 1158 is similarly broadly worded.
"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 and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien's status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title."
https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title8/asylum
*ANY* alien who is physically present in the US or who arrives in the US whether or not at an offical port of entry may apply for asylum.
That means an alien who crosses the border illegally, presents himself to an asylum officer, and claims that he has a credible fear of persecution in his country of origin gets to have his claim adjudicated, which often takes years.
There are some exceptions but the law is what it is.
What Trump did in his final year was to announce that anyone who tried that move would immediately be expelled via a different law and process, Title 42, in which asylum applications would not be accepted due to the health emergency (Covid). In one sense that worked - asylum seekers were being expelled immediately without being allowed to apply for asylum - but it had its own problems. Title 42 was a "no harm no foul" type of process: migrants weren't penlized for crossing illegally, they were just expelled, and so there was nothing stopping them from attempting to come in again, which many did.
The lawful authority for Title 42 was ended at some point during the Biden Admin, in response to Covid being over and lafter osing some legal cases.
Some changes to law that would be beneficial are: 1) changes to the system of processing asylum applications so that adjudication of claims can happen much faster, within days/weeks instead of years; 2) more resources to the border (more border patrol officers, more asylun officers, more immigration judges), 3) giving the President authority/requirement to pause accepting asylum applications when the number of migrant encounters at the border gets too high. These are all things addressed in the Lankford bill.
"May apply" does not mean the status is automatically granted. If that were the case, that application confers the status, there would be no need for the application. That should be obvious, except for obstructionist Democrats. If it were the case that simple application confers the status, then the act of applying for a driving license would mean that the applicant would be immediately allowed to drive - same case for a license to practice law, or medicine. And that just isn't the case.