Democratic Hispanic caucus criticizes Biden administration’s border policies as left-wing anger grows

arahbaru.com – World News | The Biden administration’s recently announced plans to contain the enormous migrant problem at the southern border came under fire this week from Democrats in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, marking the latest criticism from the administration’s left wing.

In a press conference on Thursday, Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-New York, stated that the caucus had voiced “some concerns over the current policies that have been put in place by the administration.”

For Nicaraguans, Cubans, Haitians, and Venezuelans, the administration established in January a humanitarian parole program that enables 30,000 migrants in a month if they satisfy certain requirements, such as having a sponsor in the United States and passing background checks.

The administration has also expanded Title 42 expulsions to include those nationalities in addition to this policy. Additionally, the administration has introduced a new asylum rule that would automatically qualify migrants for asylum if they crossed the border illegally between ports of entry and had not already requested asylum in a previous country.

“We are a country of immigrants and we have laws. In addition to proposing new sanctions against those who disregard procedures made available to them by the United States and its regional partners, we are making it easier for migrants to enter the country legally and orderly “Alejandro Mayorkas, the secretary of homeland security, announced the rule in a statement.

Yet left-wing detractors have equated that asylum rule to a transit restriction during the Trump administration. This story has been denied by the administration, which asserts that it is creating new legal avenues that did not exist under the previous government. The CBP One app, which enables migrants to arrange appointments, is also being expanded, but it has been hampered by

Espaillat enumerated the issues the caucus had with the most recent rollouts on Thursday. According to him, those seeking refuge in the United States do so in order to escape political and gang violence as well as for economic reasons.

“They arrive seeking asylum for that reason. And we shouldn’t change the conventional model that offers them sanctuary, “added said.

He also took issue with the prerequisites for fulfilling the parole program.

Right now, the proposed strategy calls for you to have a sponsor. He or she would likely have a comfortable money account and be able to bring you to the country.

“Not every person seeking refuge can rely on having a sponsor. Also, you must apply through the [CBP One] app, which is difficult to use to begin with and frequently crashes. Also, it goes without saying that you cannot choose parole if you do not seek shelter in other nations and you are unable to substantiate your claim. These policies are problematic, “added said.
The response follows angry reactions to the asylum rule from Democrats in both chambers and immigration activists who frequently did not hold back in their condemnation of the Democratic government.

The following senators from New Jersey: Bob Menendez, Cory Booker, Ben Ray Lujan, and Alex Padilla, all Democrats. “We are deeply disappointed that the Administration has chosen to move forward with publishing this proposed rule, which only perpetuates the harmful myth that asylum seekers are a threat to this nation,” they said in a statement last month.

“Really, they are looking to enter the country legally. We should not abandon vulnerable migrants trapped in nations unable to provide for them because we are required by domestic and international law to do so “they claimed.

The action was described as “unconscionable, unacceptable, and un-American” by Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.).

Jerrold Nadler, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Pramila Jayapal stated that the right to seek refuge is a fundamental right that is guaranteed by federal law and should never be infringed upon. “We should be opening up legal entry points to the United States, not closing them off,”

While some immigrant rights organizations have accused the government of undercutting what they regard as migrants’ right to enter the United States and seek asylum, the American Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue over the rule if it is implemented.

According to Anna Gallagher, executive director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, the previous asylum transit prohibition was despicable and wrong, and the current version is no different.

There have reportedly been complaints within the administration as well. This Monday, a government representative informed the Los Angeles Times that “asylum at the border no longer exists as we previously believed it.” According to a different insider, “Democrats have lost the capacity to, with a straight face, criticize Trump or the future Republican administration’s position on immigration.”

The action “normalizes the white nationalist view that asylum seekers from specific countries are less deserving of humanitarian protections,” a former White House official claimed on Twitter last month.

Right-wing critics of the regulation also point to substantial exceptions, such as those for victims of human trafficking and technological problems, as a way to relax the restrictions and let in more immigrants. However, 20 Republican-led states have filed a lawsuit to end the parole program because they believe it violates congressional restrictions on its use.

The administration cited a substantial decline in border crossings between December and January as evidence that the first steps were effective. The administration would likely use lower February figures to support its argument that its policies are having an impact, according to sources who spoke to Fox News.

In the meantime, it has urged Republicans in Congress to increase financing for the border and to back a comprehensive immigration measure, which has so far been unable to win Republican support because it would allow millions of illegal immigrants already living in the US a road to citizenship.(*)