- Jun 6, 2007
- 852
- 483
- 910
The Media is trying to paint the situation of a legislative fix to the border problem as necessarily bringing a big showdown between the House and the Senate over whose bill on the issue will win or will neither's win; the House version is HR 2 and the Senate's version is a Bipartisan Compromise version. Level headed people should think differently; this writer is and always has been a staunch advocate against illegal immigration but fully supports "current" legal immigration In America and fully supports expanding it to fill the country's employment needs. Even being anti-illegal immigration the country should not pass HR 2 it is a bad bill it has an abundance of bad provisions in it passing it will make the system worse it goes way overboard in trying to eliminate the bad it destroys too much of the good in the process and another problem with HR 2 it is too expansive for the moment right now we need the Federal government to stop the mass illegal emigration at the southern border we don't more regulation on America's employers to screen out workers who are in the country illegally especially since HR 2 doesn't provide the resources to identify for removal and deport these illegal immigrants! However, HR 2 does indicate there is a lot of common ground between the House Republicans and the Senate, HR 2 indicates there does not have to be a showdown the Senate bill will make a meaningful difference in stopping the crisis at the southern border the words of Republican Senator James Lankford said this past weekend are absolutely true that the Senate bill will be a "good down payment" for House Republicans; House Republicans should take it it advances their interests! At their true core the Senate compromise bill and HR2 are generally very similar; they both want to tighten the asylum standard to weed out essentially economic migrants using this mechanism to emigrate to America and they both want to tighten the use of the parole system to stop the basically categoric use of this device in violation of the spirit and goals of our immigration laws where the government controls emigration into America to protect various interests of the American people!
The media hasn't highlighted the many problems with HR 2 which bare pointing out in light of how critical it is America pass a legislative fix to the southern border crisis, we cannot afford logjams over bad policy ideas! HR 2 will change the law on asylum; currently a foreigner cannot apply for asylum in the U.S. if the U.S. has an agreement with another country to process an asylum case from that foreigner and the foreigner will receive a fair hearing on the matter and won't face persecution, and the current law gives the Attorney General the power to make this determination HR 2 gives this same power to the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not require America to have an agreement with the asylum country and requires this determination be done on a case by case basis. This is a bad change the Secretary of Homeland Security's role isn't to make these legal determinations and to remove the requirement the U.S. be in an agreement with the asylum country skirts the whole legitimacy of the provision because if the asylum country doesn't have an agreement with the U.S. the asylum country doesn't have to take the foreigner back to hear his or her asylum appeal. HR 2 requires a case by case decision making process making the system unworkable the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security do not have resources to spend on such bureaucratic hurdles! Further, HR 2 requires a foreigner to have applied for asylum in a country he or she transited to get to America's border and have been denied - to be eligible to apply for asylum in the U.S. this is an unreasonable provision all of the countries on America's southern border are not wealthy countries they cannot afford to have and run a large asylum processing system the number of asylum seekers appearing on America's southern border is way too high America's southern neighbors cannot handle the number of potential asylum seekers this is an unfair hoop to ask foreigners seeking asylum to jump through! HR 2 requires foreigners to have come to America at a port of entry to be eligible to apply for asylum no foreigners appearing at random locations on the border would be eligible to apply for asylum; this is unfair foreigners seeking asylum are usually poor, uneducated people they cannot possibly be expected to know this condition for being able to apply for asylum most of these migrants have gone through very dangerous journeys to get to America and they have had to rely on coyotes to get them through the arduous journey and who drop them off at the U.S. border away from ports of entry, this will largely just culminate in apprehended foreigners having to retrek to America's borders and apply for asylum at a port of entry, just creating more work for an overstretched Border Patrol!
HR 2 unfairly and in violation of what is good narrows the eligibility of what it takes to qualify for asylum. Legally to qualify for asylum you have to qualify as a refugee which means you have to meet the definition of refugee and the definition of refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. To say it another way an applicant has to show not only a persecution or a real fear of a persecution but also that they qualify as a member in one of these five groups. HR 2 indefensibly narrows the legal definition of a social group; most Americans would think the following scenarios deserve asylum approval that a young man asylum applicant who was a from a poor neighborhood in a foreign country where a drug cartel forcibly recruits soldiers and repeatedly tried to recruit the asylum applicant with threats of violence and actually subjected the applicant to a beating which put the applicant in a coma and in the hospital with broken bones and a severe concussion and threaten to kill the applicant in the future if he didn't relent and become a soldier or a young pretty women from a poor neighborhood in a foreign country who was targeted by the local cartel to be a prostitute in one of the cartel's brothels and threaten with violence for refusal and the cartel actually had her beaten and gang raped putting her into the hospital to get her cooperation and threatened to kill her or turn her into a drug addict for noncompliance in becoming a cartel prostitute! HR 2 would disqualify such applicants because it says you cannot define a social group by its members being the subject of a recruitment effort by criminal, terrorist, or persecutory groups; also a bad limitation, that would disqualify worthy applicants, HR 2 says you cannot define a social group by its members being targets for criminal activity for financial gain based on the perception the member is wealthy or affluent (targets for ransom kidnapping would have trouble here). Also, HR 2 is furthering a bad change with its new requirement on what qualifies as "political opinion" that would be eligible for asylum approval; HR 2 essentially requires that criticism and advocacy against drug and criminal gangs and cartels in order to qualify has to of a nature where it supports the government's efforts against the criminal organization, it doesn't seem to include advocacy against these criminal organizations to try to stop these evil organization, meaning in part, efforts to get the government to get on the job and take action to stop the evil! Furthermore, HR 2 defines "social group" and "political opinion" too narrowly. It defines the former by requiring the group be composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, defined with particularity and socially distinct within the society in question; the latter two conditions are too subjective reasonable people could vastly differ on whether such conditions are met - this definition would end up disqualifying some significantly compelling asylum cases. HR 2 defines "political opinion" too narrowly it limits it to ideals or views related to political control of a country or a subdivision thereof, to be fair it should be broader than that if need be it should include opinion related to any government policy how many people get killed because they are against political corruption or some other policy hurting a powerful person's wallet! HR 2 says an applicant cannot use any type of stereotype or the like in proving its case for asylum; that is not fair stereotypes come into existence because the idea represents a common theme of behavior observed in a group of like people it is a fair characterization not allowing such evidence subverts good reasoning and deduction; to a wife that has been subject to life endangering domestic abuse at her husband's hands providing evidence her husband is a misogynist, male chauvinist to prove that her life is in danger from her husband should be legally permissible. HR 2 says persecution that would justify a legal grant of asylum shall not include persecution involving intermittent harassment including brief detentions; that is illegitimate in some bad countries lawyers and human rights activists subject to intermittent arrests and jailings are often in grave danger of being seriously physically or sexually hurt or killed, such bad things have a track record of happening in those jails! HR 2 says that an asylum application shall not be granted for an applicant that has been in the country longer than a year without filing an asylum application; this strict timeline mandate will lead to manifest unjust outcomes that the American public will think is wrong. Many of these migrants fleeing their native country to avoid serious persecution are poor and uneducated they don't know the intricacies of U.S. immigration law; the system has to give asylum adjudicators and Judges that hear these cases the discretion to grant asylum when the facts compellingly indicate the applicant is in extreme danger of life-threatening persecution if the applicant returns to their home country otherwise America would be morally culpable in such deaths!
HR 2, in part, is unworkable, illegal and could cause military conflict with a foreign neighbor; HR 2 essentially says that for aliens/foreigners seeking to apply for asylum or having applied for asylum and waiting for their asylum hearing if the Department of Homeland Security cannot hold the applicant (no room in holding facility) and cannot be returned to a foreign country pursuant to an agreement with that foreign country to take immigrants back applying for asylum the Department of Homeland must, has no discretion not to, remove that foreigner to the neighboring foreign country the foreigner transited through to come to America to wait for their asylum hearing. This is not workable, it is impractical and illegal, an American agency or department cannot just physically remove a person to the sovereign territory of a foreign country without an agreement with such foreign country, otherwise, that foreign country would be in their legal rights to fire weapons at and apprehend employees of the American agency present on that country's soil conducting such removal operations. Provisions like this HR 2 mandate make this bill not a serious bill they offer solutions that are not implementable. This is an aside note, a suggestion on the problems rising out of this specific issue; Governors, majors and authorities in municipalities are pulling out their hair and overwhelmed with the Federal Government releasing en masse these immigrants seeking asylum into their communities with no Federal resources to house, feed and take care of the medical needs of thee immigrants. Why doesn't Congress and the President up the number of placement spots in holding facilities for these migrants and if the President can get Mexico to agree to hold a number of these asylum seekers have Mexico hold such numbers and for the balance release them into America with the asylum hearing dates but this is the kicker, if the system is working right the Department of Homeland Security is holding the number of the immigrants it should and if the system is processing the number of asylum applications it should then authorize federal authorities to give these asylum applicants work authorization so they won't be wards of the communities they are released in, they can provide for themselves. The system could also make the work authorizations to be renewable on a yearly basis where on renewal the asylum applicant would have to provided his or her address where currently residing and where that person worked at for any period longer than three months during the past year, so authorities could have helpful information to locate and arrest the person if they don't show up for their asylum hearing - providing false information would cause an expedited rescheduling of that applicants asylum hearing and possible revocation of their release and a reholding until their hearing of such applicant!
Above is referenced some of the problems with HR 2 and there is others, if this bill was enacted into law it would cause more division in the country and fighting over this matter. If there are Republicans that think I am not going to cut a deal on this issue with President Biden and the Democrats I am not going to give them a win here and use this issue as a wedge issue to help Republicans in this year's elections they will be making a big mistake for they will be putting Party over Country on this crisis issue for country and the American people will pick-up on it and won't like it! House Republicans should accept the Senate bi-partisan compromise if it turns out to be what it is being reported to be, if the House Republicans don't they will be failing to accept "yes" as an answer for fixing the southern border crisis and the American people will penalize them in the November election for their failure to do what is best for America!
The media hasn't highlighted the many problems with HR 2 which bare pointing out in light of how critical it is America pass a legislative fix to the southern border crisis, we cannot afford logjams over bad policy ideas! HR 2 will change the law on asylum; currently a foreigner cannot apply for asylum in the U.S. if the U.S. has an agreement with another country to process an asylum case from that foreigner and the foreigner will receive a fair hearing on the matter and won't face persecution, and the current law gives the Attorney General the power to make this determination HR 2 gives this same power to the Secretary of Homeland Security and does not require America to have an agreement with the asylum country and requires this determination be done on a case by case basis. This is a bad change the Secretary of Homeland Security's role isn't to make these legal determinations and to remove the requirement the U.S. be in an agreement with the asylum country skirts the whole legitimacy of the provision because if the asylum country doesn't have an agreement with the U.S. the asylum country doesn't have to take the foreigner back to hear his or her asylum appeal. HR 2 requires a case by case decision making process making the system unworkable the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security do not have resources to spend on such bureaucratic hurdles! Further, HR 2 requires a foreigner to have applied for asylum in a country he or she transited to get to America's border and have been denied - to be eligible to apply for asylum in the U.S. this is an unreasonable provision all of the countries on America's southern border are not wealthy countries they cannot afford to have and run a large asylum processing system the number of asylum seekers appearing on America's southern border is way too high America's southern neighbors cannot handle the number of potential asylum seekers this is an unfair hoop to ask foreigners seeking asylum to jump through! HR 2 requires foreigners to have come to America at a port of entry to be eligible to apply for asylum no foreigners appearing at random locations on the border would be eligible to apply for asylum; this is unfair foreigners seeking asylum are usually poor, uneducated people they cannot possibly be expected to know this condition for being able to apply for asylum most of these migrants have gone through very dangerous journeys to get to America and they have had to rely on coyotes to get them through the arduous journey and who drop them off at the U.S. border away from ports of entry, this will largely just culminate in apprehended foreigners having to retrek to America's borders and apply for asylum at a port of entry, just creating more work for an overstretched Border Patrol!
HR 2 unfairly and in violation of what is good narrows the eligibility of what it takes to qualify for asylum. Legally to qualify for asylum you have to qualify as a refugee which means you have to meet the definition of refugee and the definition of refugee is a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution” due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. To say it another way an applicant has to show not only a persecution or a real fear of a persecution but also that they qualify as a member in one of these five groups. HR 2 indefensibly narrows the legal definition of a social group; most Americans would think the following scenarios deserve asylum approval that a young man asylum applicant who was a from a poor neighborhood in a foreign country where a drug cartel forcibly recruits soldiers and repeatedly tried to recruit the asylum applicant with threats of violence and actually subjected the applicant to a beating which put the applicant in a coma and in the hospital with broken bones and a severe concussion and threaten to kill the applicant in the future if he didn't relent and become a soldier or a young pretty women from a poor neighborhood in a foreign country who was targeted by the local cartel to be a prostitute in one of the cartel's brothels and threaten with violence for refusal and the cartel actually had her beaten and gang raped putting her into the hospital to get her cooperation and threatened to kill her or turn her into a drug addict for noncompliance in becoming a cartel prostitute! HR 2 would disqualify such applicants because it says you cannot define a social group by its members being the subject of a recruitment effort by criminal, terrorist, or persecutory groups; also a bad limitation, that would disqualify worthy applicants, HR 2 says you cannot define a social group by its members being targets for criminal activity for financial gain based on the perception the member is wealthy or affluent (targets for ransom kidnapping would have trouble here). Also, HR 2 is furthering a bad change with its new requirement on what qualifies as "political opinion" that would be eligible for asylum approval; HR 2 essentially requires that criticism and advocacy against drug and criminal gangs and cartels in order to qualify has to of a nature where it supports the government's efforts against the criminal organization, it doesn't seem to include advocacy against these criminal organizations to try to stop these evil organization, meaning in part, efforts to get the government to get on the job and take action to stop the evil! Furthermore, HR 2 defines "social group" and "political opinion" too narrowly. It defines the former by requiring the group be composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, defined with particularity and socially distinct within the society in question; the latter two conditions are too subjective reasonable people could vastly differ on whether such conditions are met - this definition would end up disqualifying some significantly compelling asylum cases. HR 2 defines "political opinion" too narrowly it limits it to ideals or views related to political control of a country or a subdivision thereof, to be fair it should be broader than that if need be it should include opinion related to any government policy how many people get killed because they are against political corruption or some other policy hurting a powerful person's wallet! HR 2 says an applicant cannot use any type of stereotype or the like in proving its case for asylum; that is not fair stereotypes come into existence because the idea represents a common theme of behavior observed in a group of like people it is a fair characterization not allowing such evidence subverts good reasoning and deduction; to a wife that has been subject to life endangering domestic abuse at her husband's hands providing evidence her husband is a misogynist, male chauvinist to prove that her life is in danger from her husband should be legally permissible. HR 2 says persecution that would justify a legal grant of asylum shall not include persecution involving intermittent harassment including brief detentions; that is illegitimate in some bad countries lawyers and human rights activists subject to intermittent arrests and jailings are often in grave danger of being seriously physically or sexually hurt or killed, such bad things have a track record of happening in those jails! HR 2 says that an asylum application shall not be granted for an applicant that has been in the country longer than a year without filing an asylum application; this strict timeline mandate will lead to manifest unjust outcomes that the American public will think is wrong. Many of these migrants fleeing their native country to avoid serious persecution are poor and uneducated they don't know the intricacies of U.S. immigration law; the system has to give asylum adjudicators and Judges that hear these cases the discretion to grant asylum when the facts compellingly indicate the applicant is in extreme danger of life-threatening persecution if the applicant returns to their home country otherwise America would be morally culpable in such deaths!
HR 2, in part, is unworkable, illegal and could cause military conflict with a foreign neighbor; HR 2 essentially says that for aliens/foreigners seeking to apply for asylum or having applied for asylum and waiting for their asylum hearing if the Department of Homeland Security cannot hold the applicant (no room in holding facility) and cannot be returned to a foreign country pursuant to an agreement with that foreign country to take immigrants back applying for asylum the Department of Homeland must, has no discretion not to, remove that foreigner to the neighboring foreign country the foreigner transited through to come to America to wait for their asylum hearing. This is not workable, it is impractical and illegal, an American agency or department cannot just physically remove a person to the sovereign territory of a foreign country without an agreement with such foreign country, otherwise, that foreign country would be in their legal rights to fire weapons at and apprehend employees of the American agency present on that country's soil conducting such removal operations. Provisions like this HR 2 mandate make this bill not a serious bill they offer solutions that are not implementable. This is an aside note, a suggestion on the problems rising out of this specific issue; Governors, majors and authorities in municipalities are pulling out their hair and overwhelmed with the Federal Government releasing en masse these immigrants seeking asylum into their communities with no Federal resources to house, feed and take care of the medical needs of thee immigrants. Why doesn't Congress and the President up the number of placement spots in holding facilities for these migrants and if the President can get Mexico to agree to hold a number of these asylum seekers have Mexico hold such numbers and for the balance release them into America with the asylum hearing dates but this is the kicker, if the system is working right the Department of Homeland Security is holding the number of the immigrants it should and if the system is processing the number of asylum applications it should then authorize federal authorities to give these asylum applicants work authorization so they won't be wards of the communities they are released in, they can provide for themselves. The system could also make the work authorizations to be renewable on a yearly basis where on renewal the asylum applicant would have to provided his or her address where currently residing and where that person worked at for any period longer than three months during the past year, so authorities could have helpful information to locate and arrest the person if they don't show up for their asylum hearing - providing false information would cause an expedited rescheduling of that applicants asylum hearing and possible revocation of their release and a reholding until their hearing of such applicant!
Above is referenced some of the problems with HR 2 and there is others, if this bill was enacted into law it would cause more division in the country and fighting over this matter. If there are Republicans that think I am not going to cut a deal on this issue with President Biden and the Democrats I am not going to give them a win here and use this issue as a wedge issue to help Republicans in this year's elections they will be making a big mistake for they will be putting Party over Country on this crisis issue for country and the American people will pick-up on it and won't like it! House Republicans should accept the Senate bi-partisan compromise if it turns out to be what it is being reported to be, if the House Republicans don't they will be failing to accept "yes" as an answer for fixing the southern border crisis and the American people will penalize them in the November election for their failure to do what is best for America!
