Changes to the immigration system is underway in order to fund the Ukranian efforts in its war against Russia and Israel in the Middle East. Republican politicians have been raising concerns of security threats with numerous migrants crossimg the southern border and lack of means to screen them all.
Legislators also argue that they cannot explain to their voters the allocation of billions of dollars to foreign nations, especially during times of conflict, without simultaneously addressing domestic border concerns.
However, numerous advocates for immigration, including certain members of the Democratic Party, assert that certain suggested modifications would significantly weaken safeguards for individuals in dire need of assistance and would not effectively alleviate the disorder at the border.
While a significant portion of the negotiations is occurring behind closed doors, some of the topics being considered include asylum criteria, humanitarian parole, and the authority for expedited deportations, among other issues.
Existing Policies on Immigration for Refugees:
Humanitarian Parole
Through humanitarian parole, some significantly impacted migrants can essentially bypass regular asylum and immigration procedure and obtain entry to the country in case of “urgent humanitarian need” and public benefit.
Reports suggest that the new immigration policy will clampdown on individuals obtaining through humanitarian parole as well.
Republicans have characterized these programs as a way to bypass Congress, allowing the admission of a substantial number of individuals who would otherwise have no avenue for entry. Texas filed a lawsuit against the administration in an attempt to halt the program specifically targeting Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.
Asylum
With asylum, migrants can stay in the country citing fear of persecution based on race, religion , nationality and membership in social group or organization in their home country. Asylum allows scope for citizenship in the future. Seekers of asylum can apply only after arriving on US soil.
Typically, the migrants undergo an initial assessment known as a credible fear interview. If they are found to have a real chance of obtaining asylum then they are permitted to remain in the United States to pursue their case in immigration court and this legal process spans several years. In the meantime, the asylum-seekers have the opportunity to engage in employment, marry, start families, and establish a life while waiting for the result of their asylum cases.
The main argument against asylum is that several people do not get asylum at the end of their case but they know that they get to stay in the country for years after claiming asylum.
Certain legislative proposals under consideration involve increasing the criteria that migrants must meet during the initial credible fear interview. Those who fail to meet these heightened standards would be subject to deportation.
However, Paul Schmidt, a former immigration court judge who shares insights on immigration court matters through his blog, argues that the credible fear interview was not initially designed to be so rigorous. According to Schmidt, migrants undergo this interview shortly after arriving at the border, often following a challenging and traumatizing journey.
Expedited removal
This was established by Congress in 1996, it essentially grants authority to low level immigration officers rather than judges to swiftly deport specific immigrants. The practice has largely been employed to deport individuals detained within a 100 miles of the Mexican or Canadian border and within two weeks of their entry into the United States.
People have argued that this method does not safeguard the rights of those deported. They do not get access to lawyers who would fight their case.
Ultimately, the motive here is to ensure that through deterrence the number of asylum seekers and migrants would drop over time for which the country is ready to spend more on screening practices.
Some argue that those who are desperate would not be deterred by a more rigorous process.
Comments 1