Connect with us

International

Yellow’s Demise: Two Decades In The Making

Yellow’s Demise: Two Decades In The Making

Authored by Todd Maiden via FreightWaves.com,

The biggest bankruptcy in U.S. trucking history…

Published

on

Yellow's Demise: Two Decades In The Making

Authored by Todd Maiden via FreightWaves.com,

The biggest bankruptcy in U.S. trucking history could occur in the coming days when the nation’s third-largest less-than-truckload carrier, Yellow Corp., files. The company ceased all operations at noon on Sunday, and leadership representing its Teamsters workforce said it had been notified of a pending bankruptcy filing.

The company is still shopping a small 3PL unit, which may delay a filing. However, it laid off most of its nonunion workforce last week and told union employees on Sunday afternoon not to show up.

While the Nashville, Tennessee-based company saw operations deteriorate rapidly in recent months as it unsuccessfully attempted to push through operational changes with its union workforce, its ultimate failure was anything but sudden.

Bankruptcy filing years in the making

A series of large LTL and other acquisitions in efforts to transform Yellow into a global transportation and logistics leader, the ambition of former Chairman and CEO William “Bill” Zollars, were the catalysts for an eventual downfall.

In 2003, Yellow acquired Roadway in a $1.1 billion deal and then leveraged up in 2005 to acquire USF for $1.47 billion. The goal was to emerge with a command position in the LTL space, allowing the company to leverage larger scale into greater operating and cost synergies.

A much bigger organization with a debt-laden balance sheet, the company took on the YRC Worldwide moniker in 2006 as it had become a holding company for numerous transportation and logistics brands operating in more than 70 countries around the world. In that year, it would see its revenue increase more than threefold since the buying spree began to nearly $10 billion, with earnings per share of roughly $5, or $277 million in net income. That would be the financial pinnacle for the company as a freight recession would take hold that year, followed by a near collapse in financial markets two years later.

However, YRC continued to grow through the freight downturn and with a more cumbersome debt profile in place.

A sign posted on terminal gates on Sunday. (Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

Further expansion of its logistics unit occurred in China with the 2007 acquisition of Shanghai Jiayu Logistics. This further fueled the company’s global growth initiatives. The deal complemented its existing freight forwarding and logistics joint ventures in China, which were established in 2005.

Failure to integrate acquisitions and its national LTL freight network (Yellow and Roadway’s national networks weren’t integrated until March 2009) along with its debt burden left the carrier bloated entering the Great Recession. Matters were further compounded by internal service issues and a rapidly declining freight environment, which was highlighted by fierce price competition as some carriers sought to hasten YRC’s demise by underbidding freight.

The leverage proved to be too much and nearly led to a bankruptcy filing in late 2009.

Debt-for-equity swaps, wage concessions and other financial reengineering

By the end of 2009, YRC was in a perilous position. It had to find a solution for pending debt payments and appease its union workforce, which had already consented to reduced wages. YRC was also tasked with attracting freight to its network as competitors underpriced the company and its customer base sought alternatives as both groups were planning for the carrier’s exit.

After months of credit agreement amendments and extensions from its lender group, YRC was finally able to craft a $470 million debt-for-equity deal in the closing hours of 2009. The deal deferred interest and fee payments to lenders through 2010 and provided the company with access to $160 million in liquidity under its revolving credit facility. The transaction wiped out existing shareholders, including union stakeholders, leaving former bondholders owning 94% of the company’s outstanding shares.

That deal was preceded by two rounds of wage concessions from union employees. In early 2009, the union agreed to 10% wage cuts in exchange for a 15% stake in the company. Later in the year, another round of wage cuts, this time an additional 5%, as well as an 18-month cessation of pension fund contributions, would be required to get the debt-for-equity deal done.

The following year, those wage concessions would be extended into 2015 (and eventually into 2019), and the company’s new pension contribution rate would be just 25% of the rate in place in 2009 — all part of Zollars’ final restructuring, which concluded in the summer of 2011. The union’s equity stake would increase to 25%, and it would get a second seat on the board in exchange. The day before the new deal was approved, YRC said Zollars would step down upon its completion.

The 2011 restructuring included $100 million in new capital for the company along with increased liquidity under a new $400 million loan. The debt-for-equity swap left existing shareholder positions reduced to just 2.5% of the outstanding stock.

That would cap Zollars’ career at the helm. He left the same day the transaction was completed, replaced as CEO by former Yellow Transportation head James Welch.

Zollars’ compensation (including cash, stock, changes in pension valuation and perks) totaled $2.5 million in the restructuring year of 2009. He earned more than $12 million in the three-year period ended 2009.

’09 restructuring was only the beginning

Saved from bankruptcy and with a little breathing room, YRC accelerated its corporate overhaul, which began in late 2009 as a bankruptcy filing was looming. Those efforts included divesting non-LTL offerings.

In late 2009, YRC unloaded its dedicated unit and in 2010, the company sold a stake in its logistics operations to private equity to provide incremental liquidity. In 2011, the carrier sold its truckload operations, Glen Moore, to now-defunct Celadon, and in 2012, it sold its stake in Shanghai Jiayu Logistics to its joint venture partner.

Other liquidity improvement measures were required along the way, including selling and leasing back facilities and reducing capital expenditures on equipment. Reverse stock splits would be required to prop up declines in the share price as a result of the equity dilution. The company completed a 1:25 reverse split in 2010 and a 1:300 split in 2011 to comply with Nasdaq listing requirements for shares to maintain a $1 level.

Facing debt maturities, Welch would complete a recapitalization that again included debt for equity in 2014 after tumultuous but ultimately successful negotiations with the union and the lending group. That transaction would relieve $300 million in debt and pave the way for the company to refinance $1.1 billion in debt, providing it with a more stable capital structure for a while.

However, years of neglecting to fund fleet and terminal upgrades led to higher operating costs and service inadequacies compared to peers, fueling a cycle of lower yields and continual underinvestment in the network. Its industry-lagging service scores — dead last among national providers — forced it to become a low-cost provider. Its inability to appropriately charge for the freight it hauled left it barely covering operating expenses in most quarters and booking losses when accounting for interest expense and other items.

In 2019, it was able to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that provided it flexibility around job classifications, work rules for part-time employees and the use of purchased transportation. It was also allowed the use of box trucks in LTL operations with non-CDL drivers. Teamsters would get a pay bump of 18% in aggregate throughout the five-year term (essentially a clawback of what they had given up), the restoration of one week of vacation and an increase in the contribution rate to health and welfare benefits.

The new labor deal also laid the framework for a broader overhaul that later became known as One Yellow, in which the carrier began consolidating its four LTL operating companies, closing redundant service centers and altering work rules for some employees, among other restructuring initiatives.

The same year, YRC executed a $600 million term loan refinance, which lowered the interest rate, provided additional liquidity and offered less restrictive covenants on a portion of its debt. The deal also extended the maturity by two years to June 2024.

The more favorable flexibility in its debt profile would be relatively short-lived as the industry was about to endure a COVID outbreak and subsequent lockdowns, which negatively impacted even the strongest carriers.

Controversial $700M Treasury loan not enough to save the ship

In short order, Yellow (officially renamed in 2021) blew through a $700 million infusion from the government in the form of a COVID-relief loan. The program was established shortly after the outbreak to help companies bridge liquidity gaps directly related to lost business from stay-at-home mandates.

Numerous trucks were parked Monday at a Yellow terminal in Houston. (Jim Allen/FreightWaves)

The first tranche of the loan was $300 million, which was used to clear the deck of the company’s immediate cash needs. It covered previously delayed health care and pension plan contribution payments, lease payments on equipment and real estate, and even interest payments on its other debt, among other items.

A $400 million second tranche was used to fund capital expenditures, largely the purchase of tractors and trailers, which received considerable scrutiny from industry participants. The thought on the part of the government may have been, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Yellow estimated it would save $10,000 to $12,000 per tractor annually running newer models, and that the upgrades would be the key to reaching longer-term financial stability.

In total, the company replaced roughly 2,400 tractors (17% of the fleet) and 3,600 trailers, and it purchased 600 rail containers — executing roughly three years of tractor capex in a 15-month period. However, the new loan raised its total outstanding debt to nearly $1.6 billion from $880 million at the end of the 2020 first quarter (the last update prior to the loan announcement).

The Treasury’s issuance of the loan in July 2020 has been heavily scrutinized since. An oversight commission concluded recently there were many shortcomings in the decision-making process used to issue the loan.

A key concern all along was the company’s “precarious financial condition” prior to the pandemic given its history of operating at a loss and its poor credit ratings. Yellow’s financial profile and the Treasury’s “less favorable” lien position, compared to the company’s other creditors, present “significant” default risk to taxpayers, the commission found.

Yellow qualified for the loan under a Treasury-created “catch-all” category — “critical to maintaining national security.” The carrier was thought to handle 68% of the Defense Department’s LTL freight at the time, a number that the commission later estimated to be only between 20% and 40%. The commission also took issue with why LTL service couldn’t be handled by another carrier and why a backup plan for service wasn’t in place in the event Yellow shut down.

However, the commission ultimately acknowledged the loan program lacked established guidelines and underwriting was done on the fly as government authorities were required to move quickly to provide emergency liquidity. It provided future remedies should the need for another crisis-induced lending program arise.

At the end of the 2023 first quarter, Yellow owed the government $729.4 million, including capitalized interest. It had made total cash interest payments of $59.6 million by the end of May, according to a company representative.

In addition to collateral for the loan, the government received a 30% equity stake in Yellow, which would likely be wiped out if it files bankruptcy.  Yellow’s two top-paid executives earned more than $6 million combined in total compensation the year the Treasury loan was issued.

No change of operations, no Yellow

In the end, Yellow’s inability to get a deal done with the union would prove fatal. Months of back and forth proved fruitless.

Running out of money and options, Yellow sued the union for breach of contract, saying the Teamsters didn’t have the right to reject the change of operations it asserted was vital to its survival. The company said the union also had dragged its feet in coming to the bargaining table when it was well aware Yellow would soon be out of funds.

Throughout the process, the union maintained it had already given enough in the form of billions in wages, benefits and pension concessions. It also said it wouldn’t allow Yellow to jump the line and rush negotiations as it was working on other labor deals with closer expiration dates. It offered to begin its normal collective-bargaining protocols, likely in August, or see the current contract through to its March 31, 2024, expiration.

Missed benefits payments to health, welfare and pension funds managed by Central States put the final nail in the coffin. The delinquency allowed the Teamsters to issue a strike notice, which spooked customers and brokers into accelerating the rate at which they were pulling freight out of the carrier’s network.

“The board members, especially those who represent the Teamsters, have not done service to the members or to the company,” Satish Jindel, founder of transportation advisory firm SJ Consulting Group, told FreightWaves.

He also faulted Yellow’s leadership for not taking pay cuts when it was desperately seeking concessions from the Teamsters.

“The board and the executives should have announced taking cuts in their compensation before asking for any accommodation from the rank and file,” Jindel said. “As they say — ‘leading by example.’ The failure of the company cannot be put at the feet of the Teamsters.” 

The bankruptcy would mark the largest filing in U.S. trucking history. The last major LTL closure was Consolidated Freightways, the third-largest carrier in 2002 when it filed. That company was generating roughly $2.3 billion in revenue with 20,000 employees (14,500 of them Teamsters).

Yellow had 30,000 employees, including 22,000 Teamsters.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/31/2023 - 14:45

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