Analysis of the Senate’s proposed border deal, involving a $61 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine in exchange for border “reforms”

[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fsenate-border-deal-mixes-some-good-with-a-lot-of-bad Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fsenate-border-deal-mixes-some-good-with-a-lot-of-bad)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
Senate Border “Deal” Mixes Some Good with a Lot of Bad ([link removed])
Washington, D.C. (February 6, 2024) – The Center for Immigration Studies has released an analysis of the Senate’s proposed border deal, involving a $61 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine in exchange for border “reforms”. The article highlights the failure of the proposed deal to effectively close longstanding immigration loopholes – including incentives for the illegal entry of unaccompanied alien children (UACs) and family units – noting that the bill not only falls short in addressing these concerns, but exacerbates them.

Rather than closing the UAC loophole, the proposal would increase incentives for parents to entrust their children to smugglers, particularly for those aged 13 and younger, who would receive free legal counsel under the bill, writes Andrew Arthur, the Center’s fellow in law and policy and author of the analysis.

More CIS analysis:
Border bill is terrible, and a way for Biden to dodge blame for not enforcing the law ([link removed])
Bill Spends $1.29 billion on Ineffective ATD ([link removed])
Border Bill Ironies ([link removed])

The analysis delves into the complexities of the bill, outlining a new process called “Provisional Noncustodial Removal Proceedings” (PNRP), which grants the DHS secretary new powers to place illegal migrants on a path to citizenship. It allows the secretary – based only on undefined “operational circumstances” – to release migrants and send them to PNRP if they express a fear of persecution or request asylum. Those migrants would avoid expedited removal with mandatory detention and instead receive MANDATORY releases and quick work authorization. Plus, rather than having to apply for asylum in immigration court – where a government attorney would probe their claims for inconsistencies and fraud – aliens in that PRNP process would have their claims considered by asylum officers in “non-adversarial” interviews, with few protections against fraud, little review, and no attorney to appeal erroneous grants.

Arthur also examines the bill’s approach to asylum claims, work authorization, immigration court proceedings, and the many paths to citizenship.

Arthur concludes, “Congress should go back to the drawing board and figure out how it can force DHS to comply with the border mandates it currently has – to deter aliens from entering illegally, and to detain the ones who do. Until that’s figured out, nothing will make the crisis at the border any better.”
Donate ([link removed])
Related Articles:

Border bill is terrible, and a way for Biden to dodge blame for not enforcing the law ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** [link removed] ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** RSS ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2024 Center for Immigration Studies, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
Center for Immigration Studies
1629 K St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
USA

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.

** View this e-mail in your browser. ([link removed])

This is the Center for Immigration Studies CISNews e-mail list.