Connect with us

Government

Monoclonal Antibody Cocktails May be Ineffective or Too Risky For Severe COVID-19 Patients

Regeneron, Lilly Setbacks Raise Questions on the Effectiveness of Antibodies in Severe COVID-19

Published

on

This article was originally published by GEN.

Clinical setbacks reported this past week by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly have raised questions about the effectiveness of antibody therapies in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to patients with mild-to-moderate forms of the virus. Regeneron said Friday it agreed to hold off on further enrollment of patients requiring high-flow oxygen or mechanical ventilation in the Phase II/III portion (NCT04426695) of an adaptive Phase I/II/III trial assessing its two-antibody “cocktail” REGN-COV2 in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19. In pausing enrollment of the sickest patients, Regeneron said it is following the recommendation of the trial’s independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) “based on a potential safety signal and an unfavorable risk/benefit profile at this time.” Regeneron did not disclose the potential safety signal that triggered the pause in patient enrollment—but did say it would inform the FDA of its findings, since the agency is evaluating the company’s request for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of REGN-COV2 for in mild-to-moderate outpatients at high risk for poor outcomes. Regeneron is the second developer of a leading antibody candidate against COVID-19 to suffer a clinical setback this past week. On October 26, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) halted the up-to-10,000 patient Phase III ACTIV-3 trial (NCT04501978) it was conducting to assess the safety and effectiveness of Lilly’s LY-CoV555, recently renamed bamlanivimab, compared with Gilead Sciences’ Veklury (remdesivir) and placebo in people who have been hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Disappointing replication”

“A disappointing replication: monoclonal antibodies to #SARSCoV2 don’t provide benefit to hospitalized patients w/ moderate-severe illness,” tweeted Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Translational Research Institute, on Friday. Topol, who is also professor, molecular medicine and executive vice president of Scripps Research, added that the Regeneron and Lilly disappointments reflected “the need to treat #COVID19 early or preventatively.” Florian Krammer, PhD, professor at the department of microbiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, also noted in a Twitter thread that early in COVID-19, monoclonal antibodies and other antivirals are likely to help infected patients. “Late in infection, our own immune system does the damage, and immunomodulatory drugs likely help at this stage (like dexamethasone),” Krammer said. “Using mAbs late (like in the trials stopped by Eli Lilly and Regeneron) was unlikely to work. But using them early is very promising.” Reflecting that promise, the IDMC in Regeneron’s hospitalized patient trial of REGN-COV2 also recommended continuing enrollment of the less severely injured hospitalized patients—namely those requiring either no or low-flow oxygen, “as the risk/benefit remains acceptable in these cohorts.” The trial has an estimated enrollment of 2,970 participants.

No changes

Regeneron added that its other three late-stage trials will proceed with no changes. One of those trials is the Phase II/III portion (NCT04425629) of an adaptive Phase I/II/III trial evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of REGN-COV2 in ambulatory adult outpatients with COVID-19. The randomized, double-blind trial has an estimated enrollment of 2,104 participants. On Wednesday, Regeneron trumpeted data from a second group of 524 patients showing that the antibody cocktail met its primary endpoint of significantly reducing viral load and medical visits. However, Regeneron disclosed that it was reviewing a possible change to dosages in that study after finding no significant difference in efficacy between REGN-COV2’s low dose of 2.4 g, and its high dose of 8 g. That finding differed with initial data from the trial’s first 275 patients that was announced by the company in September, which showed that the 8 g dose showed better results than the 2.4 g low dose and placebo. The results from the first 275 patients also showed REGN-COV2 significantly reducing viral load and medical visits. Based on those positive results, Regeneron said October 7 it will seek an EUA for the antibody cocktail.

Symptomatic benefit?

Brian P. Skorney, a senior research analyst with Baird, observed in a research note that while data from the first group of patients showed a symptomatic benefit, data from the second did not—by Regeneron’s design. “There was no planned formal statistical analysis of symptom alleviation in this analysis; descriptive analyses did not reveal robust associations with viral load, serology status or treatment,” the company stated on Wednesday. Concluded Skorney: “Unfortunately, it seems that the symptomatic benefit Regeneron highlighted in its top-line release of the early data from this study has waned.” The other two late-stage trials with which Regeneron is proceeding:
  • A portion of the 15,000-patient open-label, Phase III RECOVERY (Randomized Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY) trial (NCT04381936) that is examining the effectiveness of the cocktail plus standard of care in at least 2,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients to be chosen at random in the U.K., and comparing that to another 2,000 patients who already receive standard of care alone.
  • A Phase III trial (NCT04452318) designed to assess REGN-COV2’s ability to prevent infection among uninfected people who have had close exposure to a COVID-19 patient, such as a patient’s housemate. The trial has an estimated enrollment of 2,000 participants.
REGN-COV2 is a combination of two monoclonal antibodies, REGN10933 and REGN10987, that are designed to both treat people with COVID-19 and to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both antibodies are designed to bind non-competitively to different sides of the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein. Bamlanivimab is an anti-SAR-CoV-2 antibody first identified in a blood sample from a recovered COVID-19 patient, and discovered through the rapid pandemic response platform of partner AbCellera, in partnership with NIAID’s Vaccine Research Center.

Front runners

Both REGN-COV2 and bamlanivimab are among 19 “front runner” candidates among the 230+ COVID-19 therapeutics detailed in GEN’s updated “COVID-19 Drug & Vaccine Candidate Tracker.” On October 13, NIAID paused patient enrollment in the Phase III ACTIV-3 trial, citing an undisclosed safety concern. The trial had recruited 326 participants before the pause, which NIAID said was recommended by its independent data safety monitoring board after “an overall difference in clinical status between the group receiving LY-CoV555 and the group receiving saline placebo” was found during a planned interim analysis of safety data for the first 300 participants enrolled in the trial. The board followed up by reviewing data October 26 at a scheduled meeting. The data suggested that bamlanivimab was unlikely to help hospitalized COVID-19 patients recover from the advanced stage of their disease, NIAID and Lilly stated. Eli Lilly’s antibody therapy is the first of several COVID-19 candidates set to be evaluated in ACTIV-3. The multicenter, adaptive, randomized, blinded, controlled trial is governed by a master protocol is designed to allow for the study of multiple candidates compared to placebo in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Participants in ACTIV-3 were randomized to treatment with LY-CoV555 plus current standard of care (SOC), remdesivir plus current SOC, or placebo plus current SOC. Lilly said all other trials of LY-CoV555 were continuing, and noted that ACTIV-3 focused on hospitalized patients who were being treated with other drugs and were more severely ill than those in its other trials. The other trials include:
  • ACTIV-2 (NCT04518410), an NIH-sponsored study in recently diagnosed mild to moderate COVID-19 patients;
  • BLAZE-1 (NCT04427501), Lilly’s ongoing Phase II trial in people recently diagnosed with COVID-19 in the ambulatory (non-hospitalized) setting, studying bamlanivimab as monotherapy and in combination with etesevimab;
  • BLAZE-2 (NCT04497987), Lilly’s Phase III study of bamlanivimab for the prevention of COVID-19 in residents and staff at long-term care facilities.

“Insufficient evidence”

“While there was insufficient evidence that bamlanivimab improved clinical outcomes when added to other treatments in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we remain confident based on data from Lilly’s BLAZE-1 study that bamlanivimab monotherapy may prevent progression of disease for those earlier in the course of COVID-19,” Lilly said October 28 in a  statement. The following day, Derek Lowe, PhD, a drug discovery chemist who authors the blog “In the Pipeline” published by Science Translational Medicine, opined on Twitter: “I have to be honest: I was expecting more from the monoclonal antibodies than we’re seeing now from Lilly and Regeneron.” “It looks like you need to give the mAbs early, to people who have risk factors,” Lowe added. In September, Lilly announced positive proof of concept data from an interim analysis of the Phase II BLAZE-1 trial showing a reduced rate of hospitalization for mild-to-moderate recently diagnosed COVID-19 patients treated with bamlanivimab. The trial’s pre-specified primary endpoint, change from baseline in viral load at day 11, was met at the middle of three dose levels studied (2800 mg), but not the other three groups studied (700 mg, 7000 mg, and placebo). According to Lilly, most patients—including those randomized to placebo—showed near-complete viral clearance by day 11. Bamlanivimab also improved viral clearance at an earlier time point (day 3) and reduced the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load at later time points. Another pre-specified endpoint, COVID-19-related hospitalization or ER visit, occurred in 1.7% (5/302) of bamlanivimab patients, pooled across dose groups, compared to 6% (9/150) of placebo patients—a 72% risk reduction, Lilly said. Most study hospitalizations occurred in patients with underlying risk factors (age or body mass index), suggesting a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in these higher-risk groups, a finding that Lilly said it will seek to confirm through ongoing studies. BLAZE-1 is enrolling a larger, confirmatory cohort of higher risk patients, testing the ability of the antibody combination to reduce the number of patients with persistently high viral load and reduce COVID-19 related hospitalizations.

Positive combination data

Earlier this month, Lilly promoted positive interim data from BLAZE-1 showing that a combination of LY-CoV555 and LY-CoV016—another Lilly antibody that binds a different epitope in the SARS-CoV-2 spike region—reduced viral load, symptoms, and COVID-related hospitalization and ER visits. A day later, Lilly announced additional BLAZE-1 data from an exploratory analysis which showed that the proportion of patients with persistent high viral load at day 7 for the combination therapy was lower (3.0%) vs. placebo (20.8%). Based on that positive data, Lilly submitted a request to the FDA for an EUA of bamlanivimab as a monotherapy in higher-risk patients who have been recently diagnosed with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. However, Lilly did not furnish baseline viral load data in its announcement of interim results: “The lack of baseline viral load data for LLY is not helpful,” Canaccord Genuity analyst John Newman, PhD, fumed in a research note. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled BLAZE-1 assessed the two neutralizing antibodies for the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. The combination cohort enrolled recently diagnosed patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, of which 112 were assigned to 2800 mg of each antibody, while the other 156 patients were randomized to placebo. At day 11, the combination therapy met the trial’s primary endpoint by “significantly” reducing viral load at day 11, while “most” patients, including those receiving placebo, showed near-complete viral clearance by day 11. Lilly said it plans to publish data for the combination therapy and LY-CoV555 monotherapy in peer-reviewed journals “as soon as possible.” Lilly added that the combination treatment reduced viral levels at day 3 and day 7, while also significantly reducing the time-weighted average change from baseline from day 1 to 11. An exploratory analysis showed that the proportion of patients with persistent high viral load at day 7 for combination therapy was lower (3.0%) vs. placebo (20.8%). The post Regeneron, Lilly Setbacks Raise Questions on the Effectiveness of Antibodies in Severe COVID-19 appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

President Biden Delivers The “Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President”

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through…

Published

on

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through the State of The Union, President Biden can go back to his crypt now.

Whatever 'they' gave Biden, every American man, woman, and the other should be allowed to take it - though it seems the cocktail brings out 'dark Brandon'?

Tl;dw: Biden's Speech tonight ...

  • Fund Ukraine.

  • Trump is threat to democracy and America itself.

  • Abortion is good.

  • American Economy is stronger than ever.

  • Inflation wasn't Biden's fault.

  • Illegals are Americans too.

  • Republicans are responsible for the border crisis.

  • Trump is bad.

  • Biden stands with trans-children.

  • J6 was the worst insurrection since the Civil War.

(h/t @TCDMS99)

Tucker Carlson's response sums it all up perfectly:

"that was possibly the darkest, most un-American speech given by an American president. It wasn't a speech, it was a rant..."

Carlson continued: "The true measure of a nation's greatness lies within its capacity to control borders, yet Bid refuses to do it."

"In a fair election, Joe Biden cannot win"

And concluded:

“There was not a meaningful word for the entire duration about the things that actually matter to people who live here.”

Victor Davis Hanson added some excellent color, but this was probably the best line on Biden:

"he doesn't care... he lives in an alternative reality."

*  *  *

Watch SOTU Live here...

*   *   *

Mises' Connor O'Keeffe, warns: "Be on the Lookout for These Lies in Biden's State of the Union Address." 

On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden is set to give his third State of the Union address. The political press has been buzzing with speculation over what the president will say. That speculation, however, is focused more on how Biden will perform, and which issues he will prioritize. Much of the speech is expected to be familiar.

The story Biden will tell about what he has done as president and where the country finds itself as a result will be the same dishonest story he's been telling since at least the summer.

He'll cite government statistics to say the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and inflation is down.

Something that has been frustrating Biden, his team, and his allies in the media is that the American people do not feel as economically well off as the official data says they are. Despite what the White House and establishment-friendly journalists say, the problem lies with the data, not the American people's ability to perceive their own well-being.

As I wrote back in January, the reason for the discrepancy is the lack of distinction made between private economic activity and government spending in the most frequently cited economic indicators. There is an important difference between the two:

  • Government, unlike any other entity in the economy, can simply take money and resources from others to spend on things and hire people. Whether or not the spending brings people value is irrelevant

  • It's the private sector that's responsible for producing goods and services that actually meet people's needs and wants. So, the private components of the economy have the most significant effect on people's economic well-being.

Recently, government spending and hiring has accounted for a larger than normal share of both economic activity and employment. This means the government is propping up these traditional measures, making the economy appear better than it actually is. Also, many of the jobs Biden and his allies take credit for creating will quickly go away once it becomes clear that consumers don't actually want whatever the government encouraged these companies to produce.

On top of all that, the administration is dealing with the consequences of their chosen inflation rhetoric.

Since its peak in the summer of 2022, the president's team has talked about inflation "coming back down," which can easily give the impression that it's prices that will eventually come back down.

But that's not what that phrase means. It would be more honest to say that price increases are slowing down.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the cost of living will not return to prepandemic levels, and they're not happy about it.

The president has made some clumsy attempts at damage control, such as a Super Bowl Sunday video attacking food companies for "shrinkflation"—selling smaller portions at the same price instead of simply raising prices.

In his speech Thursday, Biden is expected to play up his desire to crack down on the "corporate greed" he's blaming for high prices.

In the name of "bringing down costs for Americans," the administration wants to implement targeted price ceilings - something anyone who has taken even a single economics class could tell you does more harm than good. Biden would never place the blame for the dramatic price increases we've experienced during his term where it actually belongs—on all the government spending that he and President Donald Trump oversaw during the pandemic, funded by the creation of $6 trillion out of thin air - because that kind of spending is precisely what he hopes to kick back up in a second term.

If reelected, the president wants to "revive" parts of his so-called Build Back Better agenda, which he tried and failed to pass in his first year. That would bring a significant expansion of domestic spending. And Biden remains committed to the idea that Americans must be forced to continue funding the war in Ukraine. That's another topic Biden is expected to highlight in the State of the Union, likely accompanied by the lie that Ukraine spending is good for the American economy. It isn't.

It's not possible to predict all the ways President Biden will exaggerate, mislead, and outright lie in his speech on Thursday. But we can be sure of two things. The "state of the Union" is not as strong as Biden will say it is. And his policy ambitions risk making it much worse.

*  *  *

The American people will be tuning in on their smartphones, laptops, and televisions on Thursday evening to see if 'sloppy joe' 81-year-old President Joe Biden can coherently put together more than two sentences (even with a teleprompter) as he gives his third State of the Union in front of a divided Congress. 

President Biden will speak on various topics to convince voters why he shouldn't be sent to a retirement home.

According to CNN sources, here are some of the topics Biden will discuss tonight:

  • Economic issues: Biden and his team have been drafting a speech heavy on economic populism, aides said, with calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy – an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and their likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

  • Health care expenses: Biden will also push for lowering health care costs and discuss his efforts to go after drug manufacturers to lower the cost of prescription medications — all issues his advisers believe can help buoy what have been sagging economic approval ratings.

  • Israel's war with Hamas: Also looming large over Biden's primetime address is the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which has consumed much of the president's time and attention over the past few months. The president's top national security advisers have been working around the clock to try to finalize a ceasefire-hostages release deal by Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that begins next week.

  • An argument for reelection: Aides view Thursday's speech as a critical opportunity for the president to tout his accomplishments in office and lay out his plans for another four years in the nation's top job. Even though viewership has declined over the years, the yearly speech reliably draws tens of millions of households.

Sources provided more color on Biden's SOTU address: 

The speech is expected to be heavy on economic populism. The president will talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. He'll highlight efforts to cut costs for the American people, including pushing Congress to help make prescription drugs more affordable.

Biden will talk about the need to preserve democracy and freedom, a cornerstone of his re-election bid. That includes protecting and bolstering reproductive rights, an issue Democrats believe will energize voters in November. Biden is also expected to promote his unity agenda, a key feature of each of his addresses to Congress while in office.

Biden is also expected to give remarks on border security while the invasion of illegals has become one of the most heated topics among American voters. A majority of voters are frustrated with radical progressives in the White House facilitating the illegal migrant invasion. 

It is probable that the president will attribute the failure of the Senate border bill to the Republicans, a claim many voters view as unfounded. This is because the White House has the option to issue an executive order to restore border security, yet opts not to do so

Maybe this is why? 

While Biden addresses the nation, the Biden administration will be armed with a social media team to pump propaganda to at least 100 million Americans. 

"The White House hosted about 70 creators, digital publishers, and influencers across three separate events" on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official told CNN. 

Not a very capable social media team... 

The administration's move to ramp up social media operations comes as users on X are mostly free from government censorship with Elon Musk at the helm. This infuriates Democrats, who can no longer censor their political enemies on X. 

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers tell Axios that the president's SOTU performance will be critical as he tries to dispel voter concerns about his elderly age. The address reached as many as 27 million people in 2023. 

"We are all nervous," said one House Democrat, citing concerns about the president's "ability to speak without blowing things."

The SOTU address comes as Biden's polling data is in the dumps

BetOnline has created several money-making opportunities for gamblers tonight, such as betting on what word Biden mentions the most. 

As well as...

We will update you when Tucker Carlson's live feed of SOTU is published. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 07:44

Read More

Continue Reading

International

What is intersectionality and why does it make feminism more effective?

The social categories that we belong to shape our understanding of the world in different ways.

Published

on

Mary Long/Shutterstock

The way we talk about society and the people and structures in it is constantly changing. One term you may come across this International Women’s Day is “intersectionality”. And specifically, the concept of “intersectional feminism”.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that everyone is part of multiple social categories. These include gender, social class, sexuality, (dis)ability and racialisation (when people are divided into “racial” groups often based on skin colour or features).

These categories are not independent of each other, they intersect. This looks different for every person. For example, a black woman without a disability will have a different experience of society than a white woman without a disability – or a black woman with a disability.

An intersectional approach makes social policy more inclusive and just. Its value was evident in research during the pandemic, when it became clear that women from various groups, those who worked in caring jobs and who lived in crowded circumstances were much more likely to die from COVID.

A long-fought battle

American civil rights leader and scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the term intersectionality in a 1989 paper. She argued that focusing on a single form of oppression (such as gender or race) perpetuated discrimination against black women, who are simultaneously subjected to both racism and sexism.

Crenshaw gave a name to ways of thinking and theorising that black and Latina feminists, as well as working-class and lesbian feminists, had argued for decades. The Combahee River Collective of black lesbians was groundbreaking in this work.

They called for strategic alliances with black men to oppose racism, white women to oppose sexism and lesbians to oppose homophobia. This was an example of how an intersectional understanding of identity and social power relations can create more opportunities for action.

These ideas have, through political struggle, come to be accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies scholarship. An increasing number of feminists now use the term “intersectional feminism”.

The term has moved from academia to feminist activist and social justice circles and beyond in recent years. Its popularity and widespread use means it is subjected to much scrutiny and debate about how and when it should be employed. For example, some argue that it should always include attention to racism and racialisation.

Recognising more issues makes feminism more effective

In writing about intersectionality, Crenshaw argued that singular approaches to social categories made black women’s oppression invisible. Many black feminists have pointed out that white feminists frequently overlook how racial categories shape different women’s experiences.

One example is hair discrimination. It is only in the 2020s that many organisations in South Africa, the UK and US have recognised that it is discriminatory to regulate black women’s hairstyles in ways that render their natural hair unacceptable.

This is an intersectional approach. White women and most black men do not face the same discrimination and pressures to straighten their hair.

View from behind of a young, black woman speaking to female colleagues in an office
Intersectionality can lead to more inclusive organisations, activism and social movements. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

“Abortion on demand” in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and USA took no account of the fact that black women in these and many other countries needed to campaign against being given abortions against their will. The fight for reproductive justice does not look the same for all women.

Similarly, the experiences of working-class women have frequently been rendered invisible in white, middle class feminist campaigns and writings. Intersectionality means that these issues are recognised and fought for in an inclusive and more powerful way.

In the 35 years since Crenshaw coined the term, feminist scholars have analysed how women are positioned in society, for example, as black, working-class, lesbian or colonial subjects. Intersectionality reminds us that fruitful discussions about discrimination and justice must acknowledge how these different categories affect each other and their associated power relations.

This does not mean that research and policy cannot focus predominantly on one social category, such as race, gender or social class. But it does mean that we cannot, and should not, understand those categories in isolation of each other.

Ann Phoenix does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Biden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act

A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration…

Published

on

By

President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.

The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.

But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.

“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech comes as a rising number of American voters say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem.

Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.

President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face.
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?

The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement policies at the border.

Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.

But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through barbed wire fences. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants.

Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an “invasion” at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the flow of migration at the border.

2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?

Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border.

The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the border illegally. That law has not changed.

Courts struck down many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law called Title 42. Biden continued that policy until the legal justification for Title 42 – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023.

Republicans falsely attribute the surge in undocumented migration to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s “open border” policy. There is no such policy.

Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S.

More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in their countries, and some people have waited to migrate until after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. People who smuggle migrants are also spreading misinformation to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S.

Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green
President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

3. How much power does the president have over immigration?

The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws.

For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S.

The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 immigrants from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year.

But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum.

Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. Without congressional approval, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.

A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt.
Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?

In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop taking asylum applications when migrant crossings reached a certain number.

During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”

That bill would have also provided more federal money to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers.

Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said.

“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked.

Biden is now considering using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.

This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a travel ban on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in 2018.

Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.

Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending