No. of Recommendations: 2
Because you're not codifying the crisis into law.
Not triggering the so-called enhanced provisions unless 5,000 people cross the border illegally a day very much codifies it into law.
Asylum seekers aren't illegal aliens. They're illegal aliens who have been coached on what to say. I understand you want to stand behind the letter of the law and ignore what's actually happening.
Right now, what's "codified" into law is that no one claiming asylum is eligible for exclusion or expulsion because they entered outside of a POE. What the new law would do is create a trigger situation where that would change, temporarily, in response to a surge in migrants.
After the first 5,000 came in. You consistently ignore that first bunch.
The proposed law would provide that in certain circumstances, you can prevent them from applying from asylum if the cross outside of a POE. How does that make things worse?
You've been lied to. I just showed you the numbers. The triggers don't do anything unless we have numbers that are among the worst we've ever seen.
If the numbers don't go down to a level where we can process all the asylees, then the bar on applying for asylum kicks in and we start doing summary expulsions. Which is probably a violation of international law, but one we might be able to defend (maybe) by pointing to the limited circumstances that it kicks in and the need to balance flows and processing capacity.
Were you aware that the bill directs *all *immigration* cases to the 5th circuit court? They'll strike down that provision the second it comes across their docket.
