President Biden campaigned on a promise to restore our asylum laws, which allow people who can prove they are fleeing persecution because of their race, religion, political beliefs, nationality, or social group to secure permanent protection in the U.S. He specifically pledged to end a harmful Trump-era policy known as the “transit ban” that unfairly barred asylum for vulnerable migrants fleeing danger who did not apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S. southern border. But Biden recently announced plans to revive key features of that policy, along with aspects of another Trump ban that illegally blocked asylum for people who entered the country without going through an official border crossing.

These policies are harmful and illegal. The administration must immediately change course and make good on its pledge to ensure the most vulnerable have access to refuge.

The right to seek asylum, guaranteed in U.S. law, stems from international agreements following the atrocities of World War II. It reflects our nation’s commitment to protect people in need of refuge, and to prevent the forced return of vulnerable people into harm’s way. Congress designed our asylum laws to ensure that everyone escaping persecution has a chance to seek safe harbor here, regardless of how they must flee danger or enter the country.

The administration must recognize how bad it looks to bring back an anti-immigrant Trump policy from Stephen Miller’s playbook, especially one that multiple courts found to be unlawful. Despite the administration’s efforts to distinguish its proposal from Trump’s, they share a common core, which is to punish people for not requesting asylum in the countries they must travel through to reach the U.S., like Mexico and Guatemala. This ignores the obvious reason why so many do not seek asylum there: These countries do not offer real sanctuary for migrants fleeing persecution.

The administration’s own records, alongside NGO reports, make it painfully clear that these countries have not developed working asylum systems and that, for many migrants, it would be pointless and life-threatening to stay and apply. Critically, our courts have long recognized that a person’s decision not to seek asylum while in transit to the U.S. has no bearing on their need for protection.

This means that, like Trump’s rule, Biden’s proposal would send people facing persecution back to danger and bar asylum even to those people with the strongest claims. This includes people like a Cameroonian refugee who was barred from asylum under Trump’s transit ban, despite being brutally tortured by his country’s military for being an independence activist.

Biden has claimed that his proposal is different because the administration has separately created programs that allow people from four countries to apply in advance for temporary permission to come to the U.S. However, they only apply to a small number of nationalities and have limited capacity. They also require that applicants have a U.S. financial sponsor, a passport, resources to pay for a costly plane ticket, and the ability to wait for the application’s approval — the very things that the most vulnerable asylum seekers lack.

The core concept of asylum is that a person has an urgent need for protection — often from their own government. Although the new programs will benefit those who qualify, they are not a realistic option for many people who cannot ask their persecutor for travel permission or who are unable to wait in dangerous conditions while applying for approval, let alone those who lack financial sponsors and resources of their own.

The administration has also suggested that the potentially deadly impact of the proposed ban will be mitigated because migrants may be able to access asylum if they make a border appointment through an application on their phone. But this policy echoes Trump’s first asylum ban, found unlawful by the courts, that also barred people who entered the U.S. without going through an official border crossing. This approach disregards a key reality asylum seekers face in pursuit of safety.

The most vulnerable asylum seekers, who are frequently poor and who may speak neither English nor Spanish, are often those least likely to have the resources or capability to use a complicated smartphone app in a foreign language or wait weeks or months in danger for an appointment. This is precisely why our laws prioritize protection and allow individuals to be considered for asylum regardless of how they enter or arrive in the country.

Biden’s proposed tweaks to Trump’s asylum bans are mere window dressing, designed to try to hide the needless suffering the plan will inflict on desperate people who must make the journey to safety however they can. It would leave many of the most vulnerable asylum seekers in the same position as Trump’s bans did — unfairly denied critical, permanent protection for reasons that have nothing to do with their need for refuge.

Trans youth are once again under attack in state legislatures across the country. This year, dozens of proposed bills would require schools to out trans students against their will, regardless of any harmful consequences at school or at home. These forced outing bills claim to protect parents’ rights, but they do no such thing. Instead, these bills endanger trans students, who have the right not to be outed and to be treated with dignity and respect at school.

People — children and adults — have a constitutional right not to have intimate facts about their lives disclosed without their consent. That includes their sexual orientation, HIV status, or whether they are transgender. Children do not give up their constitutional rights by enrolling in public school. Students also have rights under federal law to keep certain information private, and not to have that information revealed without their consent. But forced outing bills are designed to do exactly that: reveal private information about trans students, regardless of whether the student consents or whether they may suffer negative or harmful consequences at school or at home from that disclosure.

Many parents may hope their children will come to them first with questions about gender and sexuality. But not every child has that option. Youth who are transgender face a real risk of rejection by the adults who are supposed to care for them when they disclose their gender identity. Trans people are much more likely to be abused by their immediate family based on their gender identity, and high risks of abuse and family rejection mean trans youth are overrepresented in foster care homes, juvenile detention centers, and homeless shelters. These high rates of familial rejection and abuse dramatically increase the risks of suicidality, substance abuse, and depression. Not every child can be their true selves at home without risking their physical or emotional well-being.

In addition, many supportive parents may want their children to be able to safely explore their identity without being worried that information will be disclosed against their will, and to have a safe space to ask questions they may be uncomfortable asking at home. For trans youth, especially those who cannot be safe at home, school may be one of the few places to be themselves. Trans youth thrive when they are affirmed in their gender identity, which includes being called by a name and pronouns that reflect who they are. When trans youth are supported at home, they can become the happy, confident children their parents hoped they would be. As trans youth themselves report, living as their true selves transforms their lives for the better. Many schools across the country recognize that a supportive learning environment requires treating trans students with dignity and respect, including (at a minimum) calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use.

Forced outing bills are not about parents’ rights: they are designed to harm trans students. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, including making important choices like whether to homeschool or enroll in public school. And the ACLU vigorously defends parents’ rights to raise their children, including the rights of LGBTQ parents, and parents’ rights to seek necessary and life-saving care for their children.

But none of those fundamental parental rights are protected by forced outing bills. Parents do not have a constitutional right to be told whenever their child uses a name or pronoun that is not typically associated with the child’s assigned sex at birth. Lawmakers know that —that’s why some of these forced outing bills explicitly do not require parental notification when a student asks to be called by their middle name, or a shortened version of their first name. Instead, these bills require schools to notify parents if someone at school thinks a student might be trans, based on gender nonconformity or a request to use a different name or pronoun.

Forced outing bills are meant to harm trans students, and in the process, hurt everyone: Some of these bills require parental notification any time a student acts in a way that doesn’t fit the school’s view of how a boy or a girl should act or dress. These kinds of laws don’t strengthen families; they just hurt kids, and especially trans youth.