- Sep 9, 2022
- 24,320
- 11,816
- 1,138
I am asking about the following statements
What we have seen, time and time again, is that adding additional penalties or complications to the process for asylum seekers once they arrive in the U.S. immiserates those asylum seekers without having a lasting impact on overall border arrivals. This is especially true when the process is made longer and less certain, contributing to bottlenecks throughout the system including dangerous border overcrowding.
What is instead needed is a way to resolve these cases quickly and certainly—taking months, not years—without railroading claimants. This bill takes steps in that direction, but overwhelms them with the imposition of an opaque emergency authority, which would undermine any deterrent effect by providing inconsistent outcomes to people attempting to enter the U.S. without warning or rationale.
Efficiency also can’t go so far as to fully sacrifice any meaningful, independent review of decisions. Making a process quicker does not require cutting corners on due process.
The U.S. can’t solve a global displacement crisis just by deporting people to other parts of the world. Cooperation with other countries on migration management to support people in their home countries and in countries they settle in is not a nice-to-have or a long-term goal, it is an essential part of any plan—especially one that expects Mexico and other countries to shoulder the responsibility for taking deportees from other countries.
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
What We Really Need at the Border
The changes proposed to border and asylum policy in this bill can be over-simplified into two principles:- Making it harder for people to be allowed to start the asylum process upon entering the U.S.; and
- Making that process itself faster.
What we have seen, time and time again, is that adding additional penalties or complications to the process for asylum seekers once they arrive in the U.S. immiserates those asylum seekers without having a lasting impact on overall border arrivals. This is especially true when the process is made longer and less certain, contributing to bottlenecks throughout the system including dangerous border overcrowding.
What is instead needed is a way to resolve these cases quickly and certainly—taking months, not years—without railroading claimants. This bill takes steps in that direction, but overwhelms them with the imposition of an opaque emergency authority, which would undermine any deterrent effect by providing inconsistent outcomes to people attempting to enter the U.S. without warning or rationale.
Efficiency also can’t go so far as to fully sacrifice any meaningful, independent review of decisions. Making a process quicker does not require cutting corners on due process.
The U.S. can’t solve a global displacement crisis just by deporting people to other parts of the world. Cooperation with other countries on migration management to support people in their home countries and in countries they settle in is not a nice-to-have or a long-term goal, it is an essential part of any plan—especially one that expects Mexico and other countries to shoulder the responsibility for taking deportees from other countries.
An Analysis of the Senate Border Bill
If passed in its current form, the 2024 Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act would be the most sweeping immigration bill of the twenty-first century
