Dead on arrival
This is how the head of the lower chamber Mike Johnson has marked the future of a bill presented this Sunday in the Senate unblocking funds for Ukraine in exchange for a relative tightening of immigration policy. "I've seen enough. This bill is even worse than we expected, and won't come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created... If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival", Johnson said via X, making it clear that Republican representatives will stand firm in defending their proposal in this regard, which I described in this post. The issue, which affects the aspirations of tens of thousands of Latin American migrants, including those of some friends waiting for Washington's deliberations in places like Mexico City, is a hot potato that will be very difficult to manage for the Democratic camp, which from the communicational aspect and also from practice seems to be on the defensive in the face of a very effective Republican narrative.
Concertina wire, Abbott's registered trademark (source of the image).Hundreds of people demonstrated last Saturday following the call of a group named "Take Our Border Back", which rejects irregular migration. A few miles from the Aztec nation, attendees—some of them candidates for office—echoed Donald Trump's venomous preaching on the matter. "Our country is experiencing an invasion", one congressional hopeful told EFE. Greg Abbott was in Eagle Pass this Sunday, a key point on the irregular migration route where he wages a physical, legal, and symbolic battle with the White House for de facto control of immigration policy. "We are here to send a loud and clear message that we are united in the fight to make sure that we will be able to maintain our constitutional guarantee that says we will be able to defend ourselves against any kind of imminent danger", he declared there accompanied by other Republican governors who second him and escorted by tanks from his state's National Guard. "We're not going to limit ourselves to just this park", he also said, referring to Shelby Park, his forces' bunker in Eagle Pass.
The bill
Most of the Sunday political shows were marked by the debate over this brought and carried bill, which Trump and hard-line Republicans are labeling as both lazy and unnecessary. Also of being costly. In any case, the strategy is not to give Biden air during an electoral race that will be heating up even more, with the border as one of the decisive factors. The legislative proposal presented certainly offers some changes in certain points of the immigration system, but although it makes the Democrats cede considerable political capital with certain groups akin to them, it falls far short of H.R. 2. In the meantime, Washington's critical aid to Kyiv remains "tied up", with new ammunition and missile shipments held up. Biden states that the initiative "allows the United States to continue our vital work, together with partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine's freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia's aggression". Anyway, the fate in the Senate itself of this legislative effort is also unclear. "The `border deal' is an easy NO. It reads like a parody of an actual border security bill", said Senator Marco Rubio, of Cuban origin.
Division C of the ''Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024'' contains the ''Border Act", which establishes provisional noncustodial removal proceedings to process asylum requests. Aliens referred to this new mechanism will be provided with alternatives to the current detention program, and will be scheduled for an initial interview within 90 days to determine whether they meet the merits for protection. Those who receive a positive determination would immediately receive work authorizations—something disputed by critics—and proceed to a protection merits interview, a second phase. If the determination is negative, migrants may appeal to a Protection Appellate Board that would be created if the bill is passed (if the negative determination is upheld "the applicant shall be removed from the [U.S.] without additional review"). In the protection merits interview, which must be conducted within 90 days, an asylum officer shall determine the merits of the alien's application. If the determination is affirmative, the alien's asylum application is finally approved, otherwise, the alien may appeal the decision to the Protection Appellate Board. If a negative determination is affirmed, "the order of removal shall become final".
Mexico's support is critical to any effort to contain the flood of migrants. The Army has reportedly set up camps on the border with San Diego to prevent illegal crossings.The proposal "raises" the bar—more from the accompanying narrative than from the very text—that migrants must jump to receive the benefit of asylum, seeking to curb those who migrate only for economic reasons. "Economic migrants (are) not permitted to enter the country whenever they would like", said Kyrsten Sinema, one of the coordinators of the agreement, who insisted that "most of the migrants who are coming to our country right now" don't meet the requirements for asylum, which, as we have explained, go beyond general situations of insecurity in a given country. The "border emergency authority" is the other controversial aspect of the initiative, which may be activated when the cumulative 7-day average of encounters of inadmissible aliens at the border exceeds 4,000. Should it exceed 5,000, then it must be exercised, or when on a single day the number exceeds 8,500. The proposed authority allows the Secretary of Homeland Security "to prohibit the entry into the U.S. of all individuals, except unaccompanied minors, between ports of entry and may only screen individuals for eligibility for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture".
So, there is some discretion there, and further, CBP must continue to process "a minimum of 1,400 inadmissible aliens per day across southwest land ports of entry under expedited removal" or non-custodial removal proceedings, implying that the border never "closes" at all, something Republicans have attacked. Indeed, it is no less true that the administration can do much in the way of enforcing a more restrictive approach at the border under current law. As I said above, the Biden administration is extremely vulnerable on this issue, and, aside from the fact that it has done the most in recent years to ensure regular and even more honest entry of struggling Latin Americans into the United States—beyond all of Trump's flawed rhetoric—it has neglected the opportunity to address the roots of the immigration phenomenon soundly. They didn't even have to allocate millions of dollars. For example, just by deactivating a representative part of the battery of sanctions that burden countries like Cuba or Venezuela, I am sure they would have somehow reduced the number of people leaving these countries. We will remain attentive to an issue that keeps my friend Guillermo in México, among others, on tenterhooks, although the legal channels introduced by the White House don't seem to be in danger for the time being.
Source
