Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the world, causing widespread disruptions to everyday life. To slow the virus’s spread, authorities and public health organizations have implemented various safeguards. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) enforced Title 42, an infrequently used provision of the U.S. Code dating back to 1944 (Androff & Mathis, 2022). The law authorized federal health officials to stop migrants from accessing the country, allegedly to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.
The statute empowered Border Patrol officials to swiftly eliminate migrants attempting to enter the US to avoid keeping them in overcrowded immigration facilities while the highly transmissible coronavirus spread. However, the policy has been challenged as a discriminatory attempt to restrict immigration to the country rather than a public health approach. This study will explore the discriminatory issues in Title 42 policy, applying the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) ethical framework, along with its impacts and reforms. The policy demonstrates discriminatory actions against people seeking asylum, which violates the ideals of dignity and human worth.
NASW Code of Ethics and Mechanism of Discrimination in Title 42
The NASW Code of Ethics is a set of guidelines guiding social workers’ ethical behavior. It provides a framework of values, principles, and norms that all social work practitioners, irrespective of position or context, can use to influence their decision-making and daily professional conduct. Social workers should adopt these fundamental ideals throughout their professional history as they form the cornerstone of their responsibilities. Among these principles, the principle of human dignity and worth stands out.
The value demands that social workers treat each person with care and respect, considering individual variations and cultural and ethnic diversity. The Title 42 policy failed to follow this guideline, considering that it is based on an old racial clichĂ© that mistakenly associates immigration with disease (Song, 2021). The decision to suspend all asylum proceedings at the border showed no concern for individuals’ ability and chance to adjust and meet specific needs.
The discriminatory character of the rule became apparent as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began measures to restore and expand humanitarian and refugee processing for people from Europe. This prejudiced against those seeking asylum from Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas, and other countries (Song, 2021). Many of these people had been languishing in danger in Mexico for a long time for the chance to exercise their right to apply for asylum under US law and treaties, only to be prohibited under the policy.
Changes to the Policy
The unfair double standard had to be addressed by establishing asylum and respecting refugee legislation for all those requesting refugee status, regardless of race, religion, or nationality. Every day that the program was in effect, more refugees encountered life-threatening situations in countries where they endured persecution or torture. As a result, the strategy exacerbated the already severe discrimination against asylum seekers at the border. Following public opposition to its implementation, the Biden administration declared plans to cease Title 42 expulsions in April 2022 (Androff & Mathis, 2022). The administration cited a better understanding of the virus and the widespread availability of immunizations, medical care, and masking, among other preventive measures.
A lawsuit filed by anti-immigrant states hampered the government’s effort. Unaccompanied minors and those eligible for discretionary exclusions were granted limited exceptions. Several members of Congress further resisted the move to end the policy by passing legislation to keep Title 42 in effect indefinitely. Rather than claiming public health as the basis, these politicians relaunched Title 42 as a border management instrument (Androff & Mathis, 2022). This occurred in complete disregard of the abundant evidence that the program fostered frequent individual crossings and falsely exaggerated apprehension figures at the border.
The Biden administration took an alternative approach to the issue. In October 2022, the government said it had agreed with the Mexican authorities to accept expelled Venezuelans(Lopez-Cevallos et al., 2023). The action was disguised as a new parole/deterrence program for Venezuelans, but it significantly increased the use of Title 42. A federal judge ruled that Title 42 was illegal and ordered the government to resume immigration procedures by December 2022 (Lopez-Cevallos et al., 2023).
However, the date was changed after the same anti-immigrant state governments that compelled the Biden administration to keep Title 42 in place persuaded the Supreme Court that they had a litigable interest in the program. In January 2023, the government expanded the Title 42 policy by stating that people from the Bahamas, Haiti, and Cuba would be deported to Mexico (Lopez-Cevallos et al., 2023). Although the Biden administration concurrently established parole programs for those countries, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights cautioned that these could not substitute for access to asylum. The Biden administration eventually released laws to replace the wholesale expulsion policy with a highly criticized asylum restriction.
Populations Most Affected and the Impact of the Policy
As the Biden administration fought against efforts to end the policy’s implementation, the number of persons affected increased dramatically. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) revealed data in April 2023 indicating that the Biden administration carried out 2,358,093 evictions from February 2021 to March 2023 (Lopez-Cevallos et al., 2023). The DHS proceeded to use Title 42 to discriminate against Black, Brown, and Native Americans requesting refuge at ports of entry.
This mainly affected asylum seekers from the Americas, Africa, and Haiti, who were specifically targeted, as were many LGBTQ persons. At the same time, government statistics revealed that the 135 percent rise in the processing of ineligible individuals, mainly asylum seekers, at San Diego ports of entry in March 2022 was entirely due to an increase in Ukrainian and Russian nationals at those ports. People who were expelled to Mexico faced specific risks due to their fragile status as migrants.
Several organizations, including Human Rights First, counted the number of immigrants being expelled. It documented over 10,250 complaints of murder, abduction, sexual assault, torture, and other brutal assaults on migrants and asylum seekers who have been blocked in or ejected to Mexico as a result of Title 42 since the time that Joe Biden took office(Lopez-Cevallos et al., 2023). Title 42 has also operated as an unofficial parental separation policy for many children, some as young as ten years old. Families are split for safety, so most children come to the US alone.
Conclusion
The unfair use of Title 42 underscores broader issues of social inequality and human rights violations in immigration policy. According to the NASW Code of Ethics, the policy had a disastrous impact on vulnerable communities, prolonging cycles of risk and trauma for individuals seeking safety. While fraught with legal and administrative hurdles, efforts to correct these discriminatory behaviors are critical steps toward respecting core ethical principles.
The changes enacted helped to assure compassionate treatment for all people, regardless of country or background. Moving forward, governments must prioritize inclusive, moral, and rights-based solutions to immigration. The government must establish a culture that values the dignity and well-being of all people, particularly those most disenfranchised by discriminatory regulations such as Title 42.
References
Androff, D., & Mathis, C. (2022). Human rights-based social work practice with immigrants and asylum seekers in a legal service organization. Journal of human rights and social work, 7(2), 178–188.
Lopez-Cevallos, D.F., Vargas, E.D. & Sanchez, G.R. (2023). Perceived anti-immigrant climate, health care discrimination, and satisfaction with care among US Latino adults. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 25, 1197–1201.
Song S. J. (2021). Mental health of unaccompanied children: Effects of U.S. immigration policies. British Journal of Psychiatry Open, 7(6).