The case for keeping Title 42 misses key pieces of the immigration puzzle

Contributing sentiments towards policy:

64% : It was touted a way to keep illegal immigration at way, but it puts a vulnerable population at risk of "kidnappings, rapes, and other violent attacks," nonpartisan activist organization Human Rights First argues.
53% : Thousands of people have lined up along the borders in anticipation of their opportunity to claim asylum.
51% : Several Republican leaders, including Texas governor Greg Abbott, have argued that keeping Title 42 in place "helps prevent illegal immigration."
51% : Near the southern border, where most migrant crossing into the US happens, two cities -- El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez in Mexico -- counted over 5,000 new arrivals a day in the run-up to Title 42 ending.
50% : While the burden on federal authorities will mount whenever Title 42 expires, border security sought to reassure the public that it would keep enforcing existing policies to control the flow of migration.
47% : The pandemic-era public health rule allowing the US to turn away migrants from its borders without giving them a chance to seek asylum was on its way out -- until the apex court stepped in.
43% : Pro-immigration advocates also argued it denied migrants the human right to asylum.
38% : The covid-era rule that lets the US expel refugees before they can seek asylum is reaching its expiration date🚶 Most undocumented immigrants don't cross the border illegally

*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.