,
27 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
Wow. Massive asylum restrictions is right. This bill appears to ban asylum for Central American Minors who try to apply at the US border! It says that if you're a CAM, you MUST apply in your country or you are ineligible for asylum. And then the bill sets a cap!
Under the so-called "compromise" bill, only 50k Central American Minors allowed to apply for asylum each year, and only 15k asylum applications can be granted. AND it wouldn't be done by immigration judges, it would be a totally nonreviewable DHS decision. And no judicial review!
And more! The DHS procedure for granting asylum would ALSO require a determination that granting asylum was "in the national interest," making asylum even HARDER.
This is a sham of a sham that guts asylum protections for Central Americans and sets up a kangaroo process.
This is a sham of a sham that guts asylum protections for Central Americans and sets up a kangaroo process.
Oh wow, and limits on the right to counsel! The Secretary of State is required to ensured that covered CAMs are permitted to apply at in-country processing centers, but says only UACs would be guaranteed a right to have an attorney present.
Here's how the "compromise" bill shreds our asylum laws:
1. Bans asylum for all Central American Minors (including those who come with parents!), unless the minor applies in their country.
2. Limits applications to 50k yearly and grants to 15k yearly.
3. Eliminates all review.
1. Bans asylum for all Central American Minors (including those who come with parents!), unless the minor applies in their country.
2. Limits applications to 50k yearly and grants to 15k yearly.
3. Eliminates all review.
Now that the bill text is out, Democrats should see almost immediately that the President's claimed "compromise" is a complete joke. This bill would be one of the single-biggest dismantling of America's systems of humanitarian protections ever. It's Stephen Miller's dream bill.
Oh man, this bill just keeps getting worse. All asylees now risk having their asylum terminated if they return to their home country before becoming an LPR (there's a waiver).
And there are some "fun" new grounds for having an asylum declared frivolous, inc:
1. You filed the application "in whole or in part" to obtain work authorization or be placed in removal proceedings.
2. You filed the application to delay removal.
Just... wow.
1. You filed the application "in whole or in part" to obtain work authorization or be placed in removal proceedings.
2. You filed the application to delay removal.
Just... wow.
Oh, and all asylum applications that are "clearly foreclosed by applicable law," including the one-year bar, are frivolous. Bet THAT'S going to be an easy bar to meet, eh asylum lawyers? 😭
Oh, and if you ever want to withdraw an your asylum application, you'll be deemed to have filed a frivolous application unless you WAIVE ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS AND TAKE VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE.
That would be a wild change that would cause HAVOC in the immigration courts.
That would be a wild change that would cause HAVOC in the immigration courts.
This change to the frivolousness process is totally nuts. Attorneys are not even allowed the opportunity to object or "account for any issue" with the claim before an immigration judge can enter a finding of having filed a frivolous asylum application.
The bill also adds new criminal bars on asylees and refugees adjusting to permanent resident status. No longer does the green card process adhere to the normal process with standard grounds of inadmissibility. Now it's conviction for "a felony." Even with zero jail time.
Oh wow, not only that, if you've ever had asylum status in the United States, and that status was terminated before you got a green card, you are FOREVER BANNED FROM THE UNITED STATES.
And here the bill guts the Trafficking Victim's Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) by allowing the government to forcibly return unaccompanied children if they ask for asylum, unless it's "more probable than not" that they'd win asylum, or be trafficked. A high standard!
Aaand here's the bit where it applies bars to asylum at the credible fear stage, making it even harder to win asylum and limiting judicial review even further as a result.
And that's it; the last part of the asylum section are just technical amendments, nothing else. I left out some other minor changes that are weird and awful. And, fair warning, I may have made a mistake or two in my haste (hope not). But wow, this bill is not a "compromise."
Final thing (for now). If you've made it all this way down the thread (thank you!), and you missed a link to the text of the bill in the linked tweet this started with, here it is. The asylum part starts at page 1278. It's a hell of a read. appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Also, this thread took off a bit crazily. Please excuse any hyperbole that may have gotten the best of me when reading this. This is not an official statement or anything, just my personal opinion on reading the asylum section of this bill in real-time.
Okay FINAL FINAL THING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
A ban on asylum is not a ban on other forms of humanitarian protection like "Withholding of Removal" and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Those appear to remain unchanged.
A ban on asylum is not a ban on other forms of humanitarian protection like "Withholding of Removal" and protection under the Convention Against Torture. Those appear to remain unchanged.
Importantly, both withholding of removal and CAT protection are (1) harder to win, and (2) provide no path to permanent resident status and eventually citizenship. They're orders of removal with an agreement not to carry them out for now, plus (most of the time) a work permit.
Since this tweet took off and I didn't have the bill text linked in, here it is. appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
So, importantly! Under this bill, an asylum-seeking child could still gain humanitarian protection. It would just be much harder and it wouldn't provide a path to citizenship.
Another good find from @matt_cam; all asylum applications for central american minors will have a new fee that is deliberately designed to be higher than necessary in order to "deter frivolous applications"
Some further changes the bill makes to other, non-asylum, humanitarian forms of protection; gutting the concept of Temporary Protected Status (TPS):
Whoa. Speaking of that new form of protection for people with DACA/TPS; it's called "Provisional Protected Presence," and there is a NEW CRIME, punishable by up to FIVE YEARS IN PRISON, for making "any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements" on the application. Holy crap!!
By the way, as far as I can tell, The BRIDGE Act (the bipartisan framework which has been largely stolen to build this new "compromise) appears not to have had this new crime. Here's the of that bill. Seems like this is ANOTHER poison pill. congress.gov/bill/115th-con…
By making filing an application which contains "any false... statements" a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, I have to think most lawyers would advise people not to apply; might even an innocent mistake be punishable by prison time?
Who would take that risk?
Who would take that risk?
