The expansion of the curfew in the United States for asylum-seeking householders awaiting initial screening after crossing the border is a significant development in a strategy aimed at offering an alternative to detaining immigrants. That program, called  “Family Expressed Removal Management” (FERM), was initially implemented in four cities and is now being extended to more locations, with the goal of reaching 40 cities by the end of September, TheWashington Post reported.

The curfew, which runs from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., is intended to remain in place until the screening, known as a "credible fear" interview, is completed and any appeal is made to an immigration judge. Those who are approved have the opportunity to continue with their asylum cases in court, while those who fail are subject to deportation.

“ICE announced the curfews as pandemic-related asylum restrictions expired in May, part of a broader strategy that includes keeping single adults in Border Patrol custody until screenings are complete. Authorities considered reviving family detention but opted for curfews, which apply to heads of household and also require ankle monitors”, according to The Post.

The decision to opt for curfews, rather than family detention, has generated debate. Some immigrant rights organizations say screenings are being rushed and families need more time to prepare. However, for some, the curfew represents a step in the right direction, considering the possibility of family detention, something the Biden administration has sought to avoid, according to the publication.

The implementation of this program raises concerns about effectiveness and transparency. It is important to assess how the curfew is affecting the presence of asylum seekers in screening interviews. In addition, there is a need for accountability on escape, arrest, and eviction decisions to assess the effectiveness and impact of the program.

The Post story tells the story of Honduran Yaniris, a mother who traveled with her 2-year-old daughter for three months seeking asylum, and illustrates some of the challenges faced by asylum seekers in this process. Her account underscores the difficulties and importance of access to counsel to ensure an adequate defense.

In short, the expansion of the curfew in the United States for asylum-seeking heads of households is a relevant aspect of the country's immigration policy, with significant implications for asylum seekers and the debate surrounding detention and screening practices. Opinions on this strategy vary, highlighting the need to balance law enforcement with the protection of immigrants' human rights.