Two days after Title 42 was allowed to expire and led to conditions at the southern border deteriorating even further with record numbers of migrants flooding into the United States, ABC's This Week co-moderator Jonathan Karl attempted to compare Biden's immigration policy to former President Trump's. In an interview with Biden's Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Karl read from a statement from the radical left-wing ACLU and began arguing with Mayorkas that Biden's treatment of migrants was similar to the former President's.
"Those that are saying you are being too harsh on the border, requiring that migrants seek asylum in a third country first. These penalties for those who cross illegally," Karl whined to Mayorkas before reading from an ACLU press release condemning Biden for not letting even more foreign nationals into the United States:
The Biden administration’s new ban places vulnerable asylum seekers in grave danger and violates U.S. asylum laws. We've been down this road before with Trump, the asylum bans were cruel and illegal then and nothing has changed now.
Karl started off by simply regurgitating what the radical left "civil rights" group said before letting Mayorkas explain himself. "Absolutely incorrect. Disagree with every aspect of that statement. This is not an asylum ban. We have a humanitarian obligation as well as a matter of security to cut the ruthless smugglers out. That is a responsibility of government. And we are doing that," Mayorkas answered.
He then started arguing with the secretary over whether Biden & Trump's immigration policies are the same:
KARL: But it wouldn't—
MAYORKAS: John, it is not a ban at all.
KARL: Well in one critical sense it is the same as the Trump policy—
MAYORKAS: Absolutely not.
KARL: Well, Trump policy was you first had to apply for asylum in another country. If you were coming from south of Mexico, that's exactly what you are doing.
Mayorkas bragged that "President Biden has led the greatest expansion of lawful pathways ever. What our rule provides is that an individual must access those lawful pathways that we have made available to them," and that Biden's policy isn't "a ban on asylum."
Karl is obviously wrong, as anyone who has been paying attention can see. Even before the lifting of Title 42 border crossings were three times higher under Biden than Trump.
This delusional segment on ABC was made possible by Red Lobster. Their information is linked.
To read the relevant transcript click “expand”:
ABC’s This Week
5/14/2023
9:12:16 a.m. EasternJON KARL: Well, you’re also of course getting hit from the other side, those that are saying you are being too harsh on the border, requiring that migrants seek asylum in a third country first. These penalties for those who cross illegally. The ACLU is suing, to challenge that, and I want to read what one of the lead lawyers for the ACLU said: “The Biden administration’s new ban places vulnerable asylum seekers in grave danger and violates U.S. asylum laws. We've been down this road before with Trump, the asylum bans were cruel and illegal then and nothing has changed now.” So they’re saying this is effectively Trump policy.
SECRETARY ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS: Absolutely incorrect. Disagree with every aspect of that statement. This is not an asylum ban. We have a humanitarian obligation as well as a matter of security to cut the ruthless smugglers out. That is a responsibility of government. And we are doing that.
KARL: But it wouldn't—
MAYORKAS: John, it is not a ban at all.
KARL: Well in one critical sense it is the same as the Trump policy—
MAYORKAS: Absolutely not.
KARL: Well, Trump policy was you first had to apply for asylum in another country. If you were coming from south of Mexico, that's exactly what you are doing.
MAYORKAS: No, that is not actually—So, first of all, President Biden has led the greatest expansion of lawful pathways ever. What our rule provides is that an individual must access those lawful pathways that we have made available to them. If they have not, then they must have sought relief in one of the countries through which they have traveled and been denied. And if they haven't done either, it's not a ban on asylum, but they have a higher threshold of proof that they have to meet. That is a presumption of ineligibility that can be overcome. It is not a ban. And so, I disagree with that in every regard.
