New asylum rule has 'few changes from what the Trump administration did': ACLU | ABCNL

To Washington now where the ACLU says that it will sue the Biden administration after the White House unveiled a proposal. It says, will stop mass chaos and disorder at the U.S.-Mexico border once the Trump COVID-era restriction Title 42 expires in May. The proposed rule would be the strictest border control measure of the administration to date. It would penalize asylum seekers who cross the border illegally or fail to apply for asylum in other nations they cross on their way to the U.S.

The rule would become active in May and expire after two years if adopted. More than 300 civil humanitarian and immigrant rights groups have already condemned the proposed rule since the Biden administration announced it was considering the plan last month. And joining us now is the ACLU civil rights lawyer Lee Glert. Mr. Glert, in a statement, the ACLU referred to the proposal as a, quote, asylum ban. That's a tough description for the rule. Is it fair? Is it a ban? Absolutely.

The effect will absolutely be to ban asylum seekers. There are only cosmetic changes to what the Trump administration did. It's basically a combination of two asylum bans. The Trump administration enacted it. We challenge with our partners. We challenge both of them. And one in court.

This has very few changes that legally matter to what the Trump administration did. And it will mean that thousands of thousands of legitimate asylum seekers will never really get a chance to apply for asylum. Based on what you're saying, there doesn't sound like there's much of a distinction between this proposed rule and Trump's transit asylum ban. Is there? That's exactly right. You know, the Biden administration has put in a few small ways for people to apply for asylum. We of course welcome additional ways for people to apply for asylum. But at the same time, it's giving those few spots.

It's taking away the basic right to apply for asylum if you get to the U.S. border. So the end result will be just people being routinely denied asylum, the same as under the Trump administration, to the extent that the Biden administration is saying, well, there's going to be a few additional spots for people to lawfully apply for asylum that will not make up for what is basically a ban. And of course, you can't separate politics from governing here. Do you think it's possible the Biden administration purposely is seeking a strict rule here, knowing that groups like yours will come out against the proposal and ultimately dilute or dismantle it? So I don't know if we are entering into their calculus, but I definitely think that politics have played an enormous role in border policy. The Title 42 policy, we believe, has remained in place for this long.

Because of politics, absolutely. And I think most of what's happening at the border is about politics. Absolutely. And I would just say to your introduction, we hope Title 42 will end. The Title 42 policy will end in May, but there's no guarantee. And a lot of states are saying they're going to sue to keep it in place. They've already tried to do that.

So I think we have a lot of battles ahead of us, but there's no question in our mind that politics are entering into this. Because we certainly believe that the Biden administration has to be looking at the law and know that these policies were struck down previously and the distinctions they're offering between their policy and the Trump administration policies don't really go with the legal vulnerability of the law. Well, what would you want to see in its place if, in May, Title 42 expires, if this proposal goes too far? What correct amount of restriction the ACLU and other groups, what would you approve of? So I think that's a good question. And I think we have laws in place to screen asylum seekers, to weed out credible asylum claims from others. What these bans do is essentially prevent people from getting a meaningful hearing. We're not saying that everyone's entitled to asylum, but we want meaningful hearings. But I hear from the administration constantly, or other people is, well, we just don't have the resources.

We do have the resources to screen people. It's just a matter of saying, we're going to actually put those resources in place and not take the easy way out and just put bans in place. I mean, remember, after World War II, we said we would never again send people back to danger without a proper screening. That's what these bans do. We just need to once and for all say, we are going to fund our asylum system. We are going to have a proper asylum system. If we want to talk about tweaking the asylum system to make it more efficient, we're all for that.

But there have to be proper hearings. This is a sham to say, well, people can get a hearing if they applied for asylum or were denied in the third country. The Biden administration knows full well that the third country is the people transit through do not have functioning asylum systems. So it's just an illusory promise to say, well, you can get an asylum hearing here if you apply somewhere else. Or you can make an appointment through an app that people do not have access to. And in any event, the Biden administration is not saying how many people they will actually schedule appointments for through these apps. So I think what we see is a sort of PR moved by the Biden administration.

But ultimately, this will function very much like a man. But if you were talking directly to the Biden administration, what would your appeal to them be? So we and other groups have been talking to the Biden administration and they are ignoring what we're suggesting. We are suggesting that people be put through the regular asylum system and that we beef up that asylum system with more immigration judges or asylum officers. People don't need to be detained who are not a danger. Families coming in fleeing danger do not need to be detained. They know our proposals as long as you said hundreds of other groups that have pushed back. This is not a situation where they don't have alternatives in front of them.

This is a situation I think as you suggested that maybe politics are playing a role. They want to look tough on the border. But that's not really what should be done when they were just talking about desperate people fleeing danger. We learned ACLU lawyer, we so appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Hi, everyone.

George Stephanopoulos here. Thanks for checking out the ABC News YouTube channel. If you'd like to get more videos, show highlights and watch live event coverage, click on the right over here to subscribe to our channel. And don't forget to download the ABC News app for breaking news alerts. Thanks for watching.

abc, abcnl, aclu, administration, asylum, ban, biden, border, chaos, civil, cross, disorder, gelernt, illegally, lawyer, lee, mass, mexico, news, p_cmsid=2494279, p_vid=news-97375120, penalize, prime, rights, rule, seekers, sue, trump, u.s.