[ad_1]
“None of those people are going to see that and come to the press and apologize,” Lankford said last week. “They’ll find something different.”
The text of the bill was released Sunday night. It does not support the claims of Trump’s allies. And they’re not just unapologetic. They have stepped up their rhetoric in surprising ways, with some mistakenly labeling the bill an “amnesty.”
The almost instant backlash from Congress on Sunday night was spectacular. Despite Mr. Lankford’s help writing the bill, his Senate Republican allies have argued that the bill is strikingly conservative — it does not include new protections for illegal aliens already in the country. And it’s a bill that’s certainly more conservative than other recent immigration measures — and many Republicans quickly opposed it. I noticed that they will do everything possible to kill it.
And their argument that they don’t want anything passed in this election year, when the border crisis is boosting President Donald Trump’s 2024 hopes, as Lankford and others argue, Factual assertions are definitely reinforcing.
“Amnesty” was the watchword Sunday night. It was invoked by many House Republicans and some Republican senators. “The Senate’s Amnesty bill erases our borders,” said Rep. Mary E. Miller (R-Ill.). Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is betting that “anyone who votes for an open borders amnesty bill is being rewarded by foreign interests and acting as a foreign agent.” Ta. Donald Trump Jr. used the word in four consecutive posts about X.
The crux of the argument is that the agreement mandates border closures if an average of 5,000 border agents are detected per day in a week. Many, including Mr. Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), have suggested this would amount to willingly allowing that number. Some have suggested the bill would give the green light to 1.8 million people in one year.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) invoked the 5,000 number late Sunday, flatly saying the House would not vote on the deal. He claimed that “we are accepting 5,000 illegal immigrants a day.”
This is incorrect. It is simply very A restrictive process is initiated (also initiated when the number of daily passes reaches 8,500). At that point, new asylum applications from those arrested will not be considered, and those caught crossing the border will be removed.
The important point here is that under current law, people currently under arrest must go through some sort of process as long as they reach U.S. soil. If they claim asylum, that should be considered. They cannot be deported immediately. And as Glenn Kessler reported in Fact Checker, even under the current system, fewer than 15 out of every 100 people who applied for asylum were ultimately granted asylum in the past six years, according to the Justice Department. It is said that there was not.
The bill would also make the asylum process faster and more difficult. This would raise the bar for people who claim they face a “credible fear” of persecution in their home country, requiring them to show they cannot simply move elsewhere. The plan would allow their cases to be decided within months rather than the current average of years by giving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services the authority to make decisions rather than backlogged federal immigration courts. It is intended to guarantee.
The word “amnesty” is frequently thrown around by border hawks whenever major immigration reform efforts are undertaken. However, it is rarely extended this long.
Some will argue that the Senate bill does not go far enough to crack down on abuses of the asylum system. But that’s not what the actual discussion is about.Instead, this bill somehow actually benefit For those trying to cross the border.
The fact that such rhetoric spread quickly after the bill’s announcement raises the idea that Republicans have buyer-side qualms about seeking immigration reform as part of a deal to expand remittances to Ukraine. It will appear to be strengthening. They have been pushing for tougher asylum rules for years, including in recent years under the Biden administration. But just when it looked like Lankford and his Senate were actually going to make it happen, critics started moving the goalposts. Suddenly, these new immigration laws weren’t even really needed, we just had a president willing to enforce existing laws. (Never mind that Trump himself called for such changes during a “crisis” as president.)
This highly expedient change was eloquent, and the effort to label the bill as an amnesty was certainly significant.
Or, as Lankford himself put it Monday morning, “The key aspect of this is, again, we Republicans are holding press conferences complaining that the border is bad, and then intentionally… Are we going to keep our borders open?”
[ad_2]
Source link
