Ridgway Record

Biden tells governors he's eyeing executive action on immigratio­n, seems 'frustrated' with lawyers

- By Zeke Miller and Seung Min Kim Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden told the nation's governors on Friday that he's exploring what executive actions he can take to curb migration across the southern border after a bipartisan deal collapsed in Congress this month. He seemed to express frustratio­n at the legal limits of his authority to act unilateral­ly.

Biden hosted members of the National Governors Associatio­n in the East Room, where he implored them to urge their representa­tives in Congress to resurrect the bipartisan proposal that collapsed within 48 hours. He also sharply criticized Republican­s for backing away from the agreement after former President Donald Trump lobbied in opposition to the deal.

"Over time, our laws and our resources haven't kept up with our immigratio­n system and it's broken," Biden told the governors, lamenting that "petty politics intervened" to kill the deal.

Later, during a private question-and-answer session with the governors, he indicated he was looking at what his options are for doing something by executive order.

Utah

Gov. Spencer

Cox, the Republican chair of the associatio­n, told reporters later that Biden didn't specify what actions he is considerin­g, but he said the president noted that he was confrontin­g the limits of what he can do without Congress.

"He did say that he has been working with his attorneys, trying to understand what executive action would be upheld in the courts and would be constituti­onal, and that he seemed a little frustrated that he was not getting answers from attorneys that he felt he could take the kind of actions that he wanted to," Cox said.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, Democratic vicechair of the governors' group, said governors got a "general sense that they're looking into whatever they can do on the executive side. Again, keeping our expectatio­ns realistic, that's going to be more limited than a congressio­nal solution."

Polis said Biden cited federal courts overruling some of Trump's immigratio­n actions, and a desire to avoid a similar fate with any action he took.

"And so there was a frustratio­n that that

would occur under under his leadership as well, under any president, absent a change in the law," Polis said. "A lot of the steps we need to take simply aren't legal under current law."

Cox added that Biden mentioned declaring an emergency at the border, which in theory could unlock additional federal funds that would be needed to execute any new border crackdowns.

White House press secretary Karine JeanPierre declined to comment on private conversati­ons.

Among the actions under considerat­ion by Biden is invoking authoritie­s outlined in Section 212(f) of the Immigratio­n

and Nationalit­y Act, which gives a president broad leeway to block entry of certain immigrants into the United States if it would be "detrimenta­l" to the national interest.

Trump, the likely GOP candidate to face off against Biden this fall, repeatedly leaned on the 212(f) power while in office, including his controvers­ial ban on travelers from Muslimmajo­rity nations. Biden rescinded that ban on his first day in office through executive order.

But as White House officials contemplat­e various unilateral options, they have faced resistance from Justice Department lawyers, who have been hesitant

on greenlight­ing any executive actions on immigratio­n that would promptly be blocked in court, according to two people familiar with the deliberati­ons. DOJ declined to comment.

For instance, Trump used the 212(f) authority to issue a directive that said migrants who arrive between ports of entry at the southern border would be rendered ineligible to seek asylum. But that was halted in the lower courts and the Supreme Court, with a 5-4 ruling, didn't revive Trump's proposed ban. Still, any similar challenge now could be different since one of the justices who ruled against Trump in

the case, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was replaced by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a reliable conservati­ve vote.

Currently, it's unclear how Biden would use that presidenti­al authority to deter the migrants arriving at the southern border, and people familiar with the discussion­s have cautioned that it has not been finalized and that Biden has not signed off on any directive. The White House could also ultimately choose not to take any executive action at all.

"No decisions have been made on this," Jean-Pierre said Friday.

Cox noted that as he's

pressed Biden to act unilateral­ly, ultimately, more comprehens­ive solutions will depend on Congress.

"There's some disagreeme­nt on how much the president can do and can't do and I pushed back on the president on that," he said. "But we I think there's also general consensus that the Congress does have to do something."

He said if Congress can't back the comprehens­ive deal, then perhaps pieces of it, like boosting money for border patrol agents and asylum officers, could be tacked on to coming spending bills.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States