The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.
đ¨ The June "Death to Asylum" regulation has been finalized. It is set to go into effect on Monday, January 11, just nine days before inauguration.
https://t.co/tQGwoRrjjW
The regulation creates near-total bans on asylum for wide swathes of people and herculean procedural barriers.
Today, the Trump administration says that they have "generally adopt[ed] the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] with few substantive changes." Meaning it's just as bad. https://t.co/EhWm9MwzFe
To them, refugee protections are first about "protecting [our] own resources and citizens" and only secondarily about protecting people from persecution.
That's what led us to turn away Jews in the 1930s.
It's clear that they never intended to respond to commentsâand that'll doom them in court.
It goes over in excruciating detail just some of the terrible changesâalmost all of which have now been adopted. https://t.co/Wg31fcb0uZ
\U0001f6a8The DHS/DOJ notice of proposed rulemaking making it harder to claim asylum at the border is out.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) June 10, 2020
Comments will be due 30 days from Monday.https://t.co/8PnYH8dnB2
First, DHS/DOJ have partially walked back their original proposal to utterly ban new Particular Social Groups in motions to reopen if not presented early on, even when it was ineffective of counsel.
Old language: New language:
Old: New:
- not applying for asylum in a third country; or
- using fraudulent documents
Truly despicable.
There will absolutely be extensive confusion over this point.
Why should we trust DHS/EOIR's footnotes on pending cases?
Under a separate ruleâalso coming soonâthey'd get just 15 days to file for asylum!
https://t.co/Ev7x0sxEUB
Just on those grounds alone, a court is likely to strike down the rule as unlawful. But there's more!
As a result, the rule will likely be blocked on Administrative Procedure Act grounds. But there's more!
Since Wolf doesn't have the authority to promulgate this rule, the DHS rule is totally void.
More from Aaron Reichlin-Melnick
Thread:
The immigration bill text is out!
— Nicole Narea (@nicolenarea) February 18, 2021
Senate version: https://t.co/aJUmtVW6Ir
House version: https://t.co/JMKjQaDi04
Excuse me while I go at this with a highlighter.
First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.
Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."
Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."
Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.
Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.
So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:
- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)
After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.
However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.
So much happened yesterday. I'm going to collect my threads here on yesterday's big immigration news.
First, we got key details of Biden's big immigration
There is a LOT to like about this bill. I want to highlight some of the proposed changes beyond just legalization, including:
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) January 20, 2021
- Ending the 3 & 10 year bars
- Curbing the "Muslim ban" authority
- Preventing "aging out" of children on nonimmigrant visas.https://t.co/jkFBIcNJEb
Once Biden had officially taken office, we got the first major action. As part of a standard transition process, the Biden White House froze all regulations which Trump had been trying to finalize at the last hour. I did a thread on what we
This is a standard order issued following every transition, but today it feels so important because of how many horrific things were in the pipeline.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) January 20, 2021
Here's a brief thread about some of the terrible anti-immigration regulations that didn't make it across the finish line.
1/ https://t.co/q0QpfVxPXm
Last night we started getting more changes. One of the first was an order telling CBP to stop putting people into the so-called "Migrant Protection Protocols," a cruel program that's left thousands in a dangerous limbo. But there's still more to do!
Incredible.\U0001f38a I am overwhelmed with joy that we are finally seeing the end to one of the most cruel and heartless policies of the last four years\u2014one that caused horrific damage to peoples' lives.
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) January 21, 2021
The first part of the promise was kept. Now #LetThemIn!https://t.co/PZGrbvagaa https://t.co/PMeOxrKJvm
After that, we began getting the text of immigration executive orders. The first one put onto the White House's website was the order ending the Muslim Ban/Africa Ban and ordering the State Department to come up with a plan for reconsidering
\U0001f38aWe have our first immigration EO and it's the order ending the Muslim Ban/Africa Ban!
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) January 21, 2021
The Bans "are a stain on our national conscience and are inconsistent with our long history of welcoming people of all faiths and no faith at all."https://t.co/4lh20OCCAY pic.twitter.com/8mW9wuPyzc
The next immigration executive order put on the White House's website revoked a Trump executive order from January 26, 2017 which made all undocumented immigrants a priority for deportation and directed a DHS-wide review of immigration
\U0001f38aSecond immigration EO! It is short. It establishes that Biden believes that immigration enforcement "requires setting priorities to best serve the national interest."
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) January 21, 2021
It then revokes Trump's original EO that made all undocumented immigrants a priority.https://t.co/MvaeqPbiyK pic.twitter.com/dpkVZAKOT2
More from Society
Ready?
Create a private foundation and give it all away. 1/
Let's stipulate first that lottery winners often have a hard time. Being publicly identified makes you a target for "friends" and "family" who want your money, as well as for non-family grifters and con men. 2/
The stress can be damaging, even deadly, and Uncle Sam takes his huge cut. Plus, having a big pool of disposable income can be irresistible to people not accustomed to managing wealth. https://t.co/fiHsuJyZwz 3/
Meanwhile, the private foundation is as close as we come to Downton Abbey and the landed aristocracy in this country. It's a largely untaxed pot of money that grows significantly over time, and those who control them tend to entrench their own privileges and those of their kin. 4
Here's how it works for a big lotto winner:
1. Win the prize.
2. Announce that you are donating it to the YOUR NAME HERE Family Foundation.
3. Receive massive plaudits in the press. You will be a folk hero for this decision.
4. Appoint only trusted friends/family to board. 5/
My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.
But what if that wasn't true?
Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but itâs a sign of a society that doesnât value the most essential forms of labor.
The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, Iâd be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt Iâd be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!
I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.
I appreciate his intellectual curiosity and effort. I have quibbles. But my big disappointment is there was no mention of unintended consequences, which we discussed and which are kind of THE core conservative concern on this issue.
— \U0001d682\U0001d68c\U0001d698\U0001d69d\U0001d69d \U0001d686\U0001d692\U0001d697\U0001d69c\U0001d691\U0001d692\U0001d699 (@swinshi) February 18, 2021