President Biden’s plan to limit some migrants’ access to asylum could force federal asylum officers to violate U.S. law, the union representing asylum officers argued Monday in a formal filing against the proposal.

Enforcing Biden’s policies would violate asylum seekers’ oaths to implement Congressional immigration laws and could make them complicit in violations of US and international law, lawyers for the American Federation of Government Employees Council wrote. in a comment filed with the Department of Homeland Security.

The same union regularly protested the Trump administration’s efforts to limit asylum in the South

US

border, including by participating in lawsuits that sought to block his policies. His decision to oppose Biden’s shelter

schedule proposal

is an indication of the

the plan of the proposal

similarities to Trump-era efforts.

At its core, the measures the proposed rule seeks to implement violate the Asylum Act enacted by Congress, the treaties the United States has ratified, and our country’s moral structure and longstanding tradition of providing safe havens. offer to the persecuted, the union

It is rather draconian and represents the elevation of a single policy goal of reducing the number of migrants crossing the Southwestern border at the cost of human lives and our country’s commitment to refugees.”

Biden’s plan, unveiled in February, is his latest effort to deter migrants from entering the US without permission. If passed, immigrants who enter the US without authorization and fail to apply for protection en route to the southern border would not be eligible for asylum.

The proposal must go through a regulatory process, including allowing the public to comment on it, before it can be finalized and take effect. Some government officials hope the new measure will lessen the impact of the end of Title 42, a Trump-era policy

expires in May, allowing border agents to quickly return migrants.

The union also opposes Biden’s plan because it would

undermine erode

pledges to provide shelter for those fleeing persecution violates asylum law and would undermine the asylum screening process, according to the comment.

Asylum officials have a duty to protect vulnerable asylum seekers from persecution or torture, the union wrote.

According to the policy, they would face a conflict between their departmental leaders’ directives to follow the new rules and compliance with our nations’ legal and moral obligation not to return refugees to areas where they will face persecution. Asylum officials should not be forced to comply with rules that fundamentally conflict with the moral fabric of our nation and with our international treaties and legal obligations, the commentary read.

Immigrant advocates have criticized Biden’s plan, arguing that it mirrors former President Trump’s move to deny asylum to people who entered the US without authorization and did not seek protection in another country during their journey country. A federal appeals court blocked that policy in 2020.

However, Biden administration officials have said the new policy is not comparable to Trump’s because it would not categorically deny asylum to migrants crossing other countries on their way to the border. According to Biden’s plan, migrants who cross third countries before entering the US could still seek asylum at

to the official port of entry.

This administration simply won’t allow mass chaos and disorder at the border because Congress hasn’t acted, a government official said during a phone call with reporters in February.

Under the Biden

Proposal, immigrants who cross the southern border without permission after traveling through a third country and have not been granted asylum in a country en route to the US would be forced to overcome the assumption that they are not eligible for asylum. Immigrants who cannot overcome that hurdle risk being deported unless they do so

meet one of the many exceptions included in the policy or clear a higher bar of protection in the U

United States

.

Michael Knowles, a longtime asylum officer and spokesperson for the union, said it was imperative that the union make the remark because its members would be forced to implement the policy.

Our members believe that this rule, if passed, would make them complicit in an illegal act, in a human rights violation by our country, he said.