Posted on 02/13/2024 7:23:07 AM PST by MtnClimber
More border lies: President Joe Biden called the border bill that failed in the Senate the “toughest set of reforms to secure the border ever” and promised that “voters are going to know that just at the moment we were going to secure the border and fund these other programs, the MAGA Republicans said ‘no.’”
- False. The House of Representatives already passed the toughest set of reforms in May 2023. H.R. 2—the Secure the Border Act—would have done what the bipartisan deal only pretended to do: Stop the flood of illegals. It’s been sitting on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., desk ever since. Check out what Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., had to say.
- Heritage pulled out all the stops to expose the Senate bill; our work gained plenty of notice, with Elon Musk retweeting a post on X by Heritage President Dr. Kevin Roberts. See that here.
Read more about how bad the Senate bill is here. And why H.R. 2 would provide real border security, here.
Republished with Permission from The Heritage Foundation
If they were not lying they would not be talking.
Voters need to do a tiny bit of research rather than obey what the leftist talking heads on TV tell them.
NONE of Biden's and the commie dems objectives involve increasing security at the border. The main ones are:
1. Grow the dem voter base using illegal alien invaders as future voters; and
2. Because it is an election year, pretend to be concerned about the border while putting together a bill that doesn't DO ANYTHING to secure the border, but is excellent for laying the blame at the GOP for border insecurity and the current invasion.
The dem commie party is the culmination of the Founder's fear that politicians would place party over Country.
It's a good comprehensive bill and includes a wall. Google it.
TITLE I—ASYLUM REFORM AND BORDER PROTECTION
This title imposes additional requirements for asylum eligibility.
(Sec. 101) This section expands provisions that bar certain individuals from applying for asylum.
Currently, an individual may not apply for asylum if that individual may be removed to a third country (i.e., a country that is not the applicant’s country of nationality or last habitual residence) if that third country has (1) a full and fair asylum process that the individual could use, and (2) an agreement with the United States allowing for such removals. This section expands this provision by authorizing removal to third countries that do not have an agreement with the United States.
This section also bars an individual from applying for asylum if the individual traveled through at least one third country before arriving in the United States, with certain exceptions (e.g., the individual applied for and was denied asylum in that third country).
(Sec. 102) This section modifies the standard for establishing an asylum applicant’s credible fear of persecution.
Specifically, to find credible fear, an asylum officer must find that the applicant could more likely than not establish eligibility for asylum. Currently, an asylum officer must conclude that there is a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum.
(Sec. 103) This section limits asylum eligibility to individuals who arrived in the United States at a port of entry.
(Sec. 104) This section expands the types of crimes that may make an individual ineligible for asylum, such as a conviction for (1) a misdemeanor relating to the unlawful possession or use of an identification, (2) an offense for driving while intoxicated causing another person’s serious bodily injury or death, or (3) any felony.
This section further expands this bar to asylum eligibility by broadening the definition of felony to include any crime that is punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. (Some states have misdemeanors that are punishable by imprisonment of more than a year.) Currently, a felony is generally not a bar against asylum eligibility, though certain felonies, such as one for a particularly serious crime, would bar an individual if the individual constitutes a danger to the community.
(Sec. 105) This section establishes a duration of six months for an employment authorization for an applicant for asylum. Such an employment authorization may also be renewed for six months or terminated under specified conditions.
(Sec. 106) This section requires DHS to charge a fee for each asylum application, except for one filed by an unaccompanied alien child. Currently, DHS is authorized but not required to charge such fees.
The section also authorizes DHS to charge fees for a refugee’s application for employment authorization or for lawful permanent resident status.
(Sec. 107) This section increases the requirements for qualifying as a refugee.
Generally, a refugee must have a well-founded fear of persecution based on certain characteristics, such as the individual’s race, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The section establishes additional requirements for meeting these criteria. For example, such persecution may not be based solely on (1) infrequently enforced laws or government policies unless there is credible evidence that the law or policy would be personally applied to the individual, or (2) conduct of rogue government officials acting outside their official capacity.
Furthermore, to be a member of a particular social group, the asylum applicant must establish that the group exists independently of the alleged acts of persecution (i.e., the group cannot be defined solely as the victims of the alleged persecution).
The section also imposes limits on when DHS or DOJ may exercise discretion in favor of an asylum applicant. For example, favorable discretion may not be exercised, with certain exceptions, for an applicant who (1) has been unlawfully present in the United States for more than one year before applying for asylum; or (2) failed to file federal, state, or local tax returns.
(Sec. 108) This section establishes certain situations when an asylum applicant must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country. (Generally, an individual who has firmly resettled in a country that is not their country of nationality is not eligible for asylum.)
For example, an individual must be considered to have firmly resettled in another country if, after the events giving rise to the asylum claim, the individual resided in a country where the individual was eligible for any permanent or indefinitely renewable legal immigration status, such as refugee status.
(Sec. 109) This section establishes a statutory definition of what constitutes a frivolous asylum application, whereas currently this definition is defined in regulations. Under this bill, an application is frivolous if (1) it is so insufficient in substance that it is clear that it was filed to achieve another objective, such as to delay removal; or (2) any material elements are knowingly fabricated.
(Sec. 111) This section requires DOJ to establish procedures to expedite the adjudication of asylum applications from individuals who are (1) subject to formal removal proceedings; and (2) nationals of a Western Hemisphere country subject to sanctions related to Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela.
TITLE II—BORDER SAFETY AND MIGRANT PROTECTION
(Sec. 201) This section expands the category of non-U.S. nationals who are subject to expedited removal (i.e., removal without further hearing or review) and addresses related issues.
Specifically, this section requires expedited removal for individuals who are unlawfully present or who unlawfully entered the United States. (Currently, DHS may, but is not required to, apply expedited removal to unlawfully present individuals who have been physically present in the United States for less than two years.)
This section also requires, with certain exceptions, detention for individuals who (1) are subject to expedited removal, (2) are subject to expedited removal and have expressed an intention to apply for asylum, or (3) have established a credible fear of persecution and are awaiting consideration of an asylum application.
If DHS cannot comply with this detention requirement or remove an individual to a safe third country, DHS must return the individual to the neighboring country that the individual traveled through to reach the United States while the individual’s case is pending.
A state may sue DHS to enforce the requirements imposed by this section.
This section also authorizes DHS to suspend the introduction of certain non-U.S. nationals at an international border if DHS determines that the suspension is necessary to achieve operational control of that border.
(Sec. 202) This section requires DHS to take all actions necessary to reopen or restore all ICE detention facilities that were in operation on January 20, 2021.
TITLE IV—ENSURING UNITED FAMILIES AT THE BORDER
(Sec. 401) This section statutorily establishes that there is no presumption that an alien child (other than an unaccompanied child) should not be detained for immigration purposes.
Specifically, the section states that the detention of such minors shall be governed by specified sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and not any other provision of law, judicial ruling, or settlement agreement.
(A 1997 settlement agreement, commonly known as the Flores agreement, imposes requirements relating to the treatment of detained alien minors, including requiring such minors to be released or placed in a nonsecure facility after a certain amount of time in detention.)
If an adult enters the United States unlawfully with their child, DHS must detain the adult and child together if the only criminal charge against the adult is for unlawful entry.
This section also prohibits states from imposing licensing requirements on immigration detention facilities used to detain minors or families with minors.
TITLE VII—IMMIGRATION PAROLE REFORM
(Sec. 701) This section limits the authority of DHS to grant parole (temporary admission into the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit that is granted on a case-by-case basis).
Under this section, DHS may not grant parole based on eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients.
This section restricts DHS from granting parole to non-U.S. nationals who are already in the United States, with specified exceptions, such as for certain individuals who already have an approved petition for a family-sponsored visa and are the spouse or child of an active duty member of the Armed Forces.
The section further restricts the authority of DHS to grant parole, including by limiting (1) what constitutes granting parole on a case-by-case basis, (2) the authority to grant parole to purposes laid out in the section, and (3) the length of the parole period that may be granted to an individual.
(Sec. 702) This title takes effect 30 days after enactment of this bill, with specified exceptions.
(Sec. 703) This section authorizes persons (individuals or entities), states, and local governments to sue the federal government for failing to comply with this title’s requirements if the person or government bringing the lawsuit suffered at least $1,000 of financial harm as a result of the failure.
You could paper the entirety of DC with all the redundant committee discussions, proposals and bills that have gone through Congress in the past decade.
Trump should push this bill on the stump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.