Migrant advocates in the US reject proposed border security law

Migrant advocates rejected this Monday the draft border control law that will be put to a vote this week in the US Senate when considering it “A setback” to the failed policies of the Trump Government, which also leaves out undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for years.

The bipartisan immigration initiative that will be put to the vote next Wednesday in the Upper House is part of a military aid package of more than US$118 billion, which includes funds for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, which has been under negotiation since last October and It has the support of the White House.

Most criticism focuses on warning that the project would revive the immigration policies of Donald Trump (2017-2021) since it makes it more difficult to request asylum and authorizes the Government to expel foreigners when the number of those who cross the border exceeds the thresholds. established.

The American Civil Rights Union (ACLU), which led most of the legal battles against the Trump Administration, said in a statement that this agreement “would force the government to expel people from the border without due process, restricting legal avenues for the people who need them most”.

“Deportation without due process was the Trump Administration’s disastrous experiment that should never be repeated, much less used as a model for a permanent border policy.”said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

The plan makes it more difficult to apply for asylum and speeds up processes in immigration courts, which maintain a backlog of more than three million cases. It also ends the practice known as “detention and release”, under which asylum seekers are released pending a hearing before an immigration judge.

Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), warned in a statement that this bill is not worth the incredible price it would demand: more families separated, more children detained and more people sent back to face persecution, torture and even death.

President Joe Biden has defended the proposal and urged its approval. “It would give me, as president, new emergency authority to close the border when it becomes overwhelmed“said the president in a statement last night, after the publication of the project.

But criticism has come from the president’s own party. California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla warned that the agreement includes a new version of a “failed Trump-era immigration policy that will cause more chaos at the border”.

Padilla noted that the proposal is in conflict with international treaties and obligations to provide people with the opportunity to request asylum.

Fernando García, from the Border Network for Human Rights (BNHR, in English) considers that the project is the “latest attempt to dismantle the asylum system” and also does not propose anything to address the root causes of migration.

Critics also warn that the more than eleven million undocumented immigrants that Biden promised to support have been forgotten. “This agreement also fails to deliver on years of promises to implement reforms that provide pathways to citizenship for ‘Dreamers’ and other long-term residents.”Romero agreed.

Angélica Salas, director of the Coalition for the Human Rights of Immigrants (Chirla) said that the few positive provisions “They offer no respite”.

The bill must be approved by 60 votes in the Senate, but has very little chance of passing in the House of Representatives. This Monday, the Republican leadership of that precinct rejected the project for not being tough enough and warned that it is a “waste of time“since the agreement”will die upon reaching the Chamber”.

For Benjamin Johnson, director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), although the effort is not a comprehensive solution, it represents a serious approach that recognizes the need for broader reform.

“The current situation is unsustainable with the many challenges on the southern borderJohnson added. “Some kind of consensus needs to be achieved and this proposal should be a beginning and not an end”.