Asylum ONLY applies to actual asylum seekers. Biden applied it illegally to EVERY border crosser.
Go read some federal cases in which the courts have taken the Biden administration to task, and then come back and write something from a position of knowledge.
You need to know what federal law says first. Then you need to know what the executive branch policies actually are and their interaction with the court system (both the prior administration and this administration).
Most of what you are getting on social media is party propaganda.
Americans by and large
do not have a clue what is going on with federal law on this issue. They are just angry and believe what they read on social media.
You wrote, "Biden applied it illegally to EVERY border crosser." It would be more accurate to say that the courts have found that
both Trump and Biden were illegally restricting it.
Trump tried to restrict asylum applicants only to those who applied at entry points and to those who apply in third party nations. The courts struck down the Trump rule as violating the asylum statute. This resulted in a flood across the border as covid restrictions were lifted and jobs were growing and the word was out that the asylum rule applied even if you were caught inside the US after illegally crossing the border. That flood has resulted in a six year backlog of cases (that is, you are here legally for six years with a work permit waiting on a hearing to determine your asylum application approval or denial).
Biden tried essentially the
same rule and then added a phone app called the Biden "Pathways Rule." Opponents call it the Biden Asylum Ban. Basically, it is the Trump rule, but with an alternative phone app, with the Biden administration arguing it should be able to deport anybody caught in the USA unless they applied at a port of entry, and, hey, here is an alternative, a phone app, so this is totally different from the Trump administration rule.
The courts disagreed, finding it was the same. In federal court, it was struck down immediately as violating the asylum statute's plain text.
On appeal, Trump appointee VanDyke called it basically the Trump rule. Here is what Judge VanDyke wrote about the Biden rule in his dissent from the decision to vacate the order staying the rule:
The Biden administration’s “Pathways Rule” before us in this appeal is not meaningfully different from the prior administration’s rules that were backhanded by my two colleagues. This new rule looks like the Trump administration’s Port of Entry Rule and Transit Rule got together, had a baby, and then dolled it up in a stylish modern outfit, complete with a phone app.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datast...032-order-staying-district-court-decision.pdf
And there is a link to the case opinion if you would like to read it.
Biden has been attacked from the left for his stances on immigration, which I find ironic given the attacks on the right. Neither side seems to have even a basic grasp of the facts or the reality of what is happening.
The Biden administration in that case has taken a new tact of entering into settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs with an agreement to update the court every 60 days on progress. The same two judges on the panel agreed to stay the case proceedings on appeal, with Trump appointee VanDyke writing another angry dissent basically accusing them all of partisan bias, seeking to keep this case out of the headlines with the election upcoming. Democrats would have another reason to be angry with Biden over his executive policies f they knew by and large that he was likely to be more successful than Trump in the courts with reigning in asylum applications (which is what looked likely to happen as the two Democrat appointees appeared likely to let him get away with what they would not let Trump do).
So, you claim Biden took meaningfully different actions. A Trump appointee federal circuit court of appeals judge is trying to instruct you that, in his words, the Biden administration's approach "is not meaningfully different from the prior administration's rules."
The fix is in Congress, but the Republicans
do not want this fixed before the election, because they hope that it will stir folks up to vote for Trump. Basically, Americans think the White House occupant can fix this by himself. They do not realize the problem is this federal statute that must be changed. Because of voter ignorance, this is a winning issue for the presidential election. The downside, of course, is that this crisis continues unabated for April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and probably into 2025, when, maybe, hopefully, Congress will finally act to change the law.