>

So, if you thought that Democrats were going to "fix" the border.........Now you know.  Same garbage as  Republicans.  A nice walking tour for the President, through the most 'sanitized' city in America.
The only real losers here are the citizens that are leaving their beloved countries behind.
Wins to the governments and the rich elites in those countries, that effectively remove this huge burden from their own tax and welfare system, while at the same time achieving the added benefit of further burdening the U.S. tax and welfare system.
Wins to the the education systems, that no longer have to deal with these uneducated citizens.  While achieving the added benefit of burdening further, the U.S. education system.  
Wins to the healthcare systems of all the countries that are flooding the U.S. healthcare system with new patients, everyday. 
The sad part is that many Americans, really think they are helping these people, by ushering them across the U.S. border.  Well, you're not.  Your just helping to gentrify their native countries, while destroying your own.
“But he should be in DC fixing this country!” -Republicans >

"Here's a strongly worded letter about international law for you to ignore." - the UN >

The harder Biden panders to Republicans,  the louder they'll scream about "open borders". >

Yup

Republican Greg Abbott, who has spent Texas state funds in recent months to bus migrants to Washington, D.C., greeted the President at the bottom of the stairs and then handed him a letter saying his visit was “two years late,” and that the “chaos” enveloping the border was his fault for failing to enforce immigration laws.

And then we get this

Biden spent several hours in El Paso in his first visit to the southern border as president... [the] brief visit appeared largely focused on enforcement issues and speaking with border enforcement personnel. Reporters on the ground did not see any migrants at the respite center during the president’s visit there...
Asked to explain the thinking behind having Biden visit this specific center and ultimately not meeting or interacting with any migrants there, a senior administration official told CNN, “There just weren’t any at the center when he arrived. Completely coincidental. They haven’t had any today.” 

e; Expanded the quoted section a bit for some more context >

What does it matter they were not on the motorcade route, and how the hell would the reporters know who was a migrant or not??  Weird logic there. >

White House staff confirmed that no migrants were allowed to meet Biden in the next paragraph

Asked to explain the thinking behind having Biden visit this specific center and ultimately not meeting or interacting with any migrants there, a senior administration official told CNN, “There just weren’t any at the center when he arrived. Completely coincidental. They haven’t had any today.” >

I'm talking about the motorcade comment specifically.  How does a reporter know if people are migrants or not driving past them on a road. >

Fair enough, I guess that's why the article just said reporters didn't see them, not that they weren't there at all, but whether or not they were doesn't really matter like you said. What matters is that Biden won't even look at the people he's trying to deny asylum to. >

He's tried 1000x to help people seek asylum.  Your complaint rests with the SC, which has stopped him. >

The Supreme Court temporarily kept Trump's policies in place, Biden's been trying to make them permanent

The Biden administration announced additional border-related measures on Thursday, including a proposed regulation that would disqualify migrants from asylum if they crossed the U.S. border illegally after failing to ask for protection in a third country, like Mexico. If enacted, the proposal would allow U.S. border officials to rapidly deport migrants subject to the restriction, even after Title 42 is lifted. >

Well, you certainly tried to pretend that was something it wasn't.  The article says the wh expanded asylum claims up to 30000 per month from particular war torn countries, and convinced Mexico to do the same with countries they had excluded from their own asylum system.  Try again.  No, Biden is not keeping in place emergency measures surrounding covid beyond what the sc is mandating. >

Biden's continuation of Trump era policies regarding asylum seekers should be condemned. The fact that he was looking to Gitmo for displaced Haiti asylum seekers shouldn't be taken lightly. The fact that ICE falls under his direct purview yet continue to use the concentration camps is unforgivable >

The White House denied that it was planning to do that. However,  it may very well have been brought up by someone as one possible approach. That's probably why it got leaked...
If I'm not mistaken,  Obama deported more migrants than Bush did. The whole damn system needs an overhaul, but Dem or Rep, there are going to be returns of people who aren't supposed to be here.
Dems have the added burden that when they are actually following the rules for removal, they get called soft on immigration by Reps. And, immigration policies DO affect swing voters. It's why the Biden administration self sabotaged ending Title 42. 
The administration wants to stem the inflow for political reasons without seeming to harsh...for political reasons. >

It's vile regardless and shouldn't be defended by bringing up Obama or Bush. Biden's own implementation of Title 42 is insanely restrictive that almost no asylum seeker will be able to fall under it. The whole system needs an overhaul, but we need to stop cutting them slack when Biden has almost full control of ICE and isn't doing much of anything to slow their abuse down >

Our President isn't a king.  Throw your anger at the people who actually make laws. >

He's not a king, he's head of the Executive Branch. I will throw my anger at how he's choosing to enforce/implement laws, such as his bullshit Title 42 policies that are restrictive as well as his refusal to reign in ICE >

He is forced to continue title 42 by court order.  Why you lying?? >

It's his interpretation, which adds restrictions that we're talking about >

What added restrictions?? It just says he's expelling migrants who clearly broke laws while accepting additional refugees who didn't. >

Lol asylum seeking isn't breaking the law, and you ignored the part where the administration is demanding things of Asylum Seekers that they aren't able to uphold most of the time

Migrants from those countries who wish to come to the United States must apply from their home countries first – including through a phone app – before traveling to the US. They must have a US sponsor, and, if they are approved, can travel by plane. >

There are also those who don't give themselves up at the border to claim asylum and actually enter the country illegally.  Those are the ones who get expelled.
Those things you mentioned as changes are actually ways to avoid title 42 and actually stay in the country.  You're looking at it all wrong.  The things you claim are making it harder are actually making it easier for those 360,000 refugees from the listed countries.  It seems to me like it's a specifically targeted plan to bring in specific refugees and avoid the issues with title 42.