US mulls big changes on immigration: What are they? What could happen if they change?

US president Joe Biden is actively engaging in Senate negotiations regarding proposed changes to the immigration system. Republicans are seeking these changes as a condition for providing financial assistance to Ukraine in its conflict against Russia and to Israel for the war with Hamas. Despite facing opposition from Republicans on wartime aid in Congress, President Biden has expressed a willingness to make “significant compromises on the border.” The White House is anticipated to play a more prominent role in the discussions this week, particularly as the deadlock over border policy adjustments has intensified, and the available funds for Ukraine are decreasing. Biden’s budget director, Shalanda Young, emphasised the need for a mutually agreeable deal, stating on CBS’ Face the Nation, “It’s time to cut a deal that both sides can agree to.” Republicans argue that the increasing number of migrants crossing the southern border poses a security threat, citing challenges in adequately screening all migrants. They also contend that sending billions of dollars to other countries during a time of war, without addressing domestic border concerns, is unjustifiable. Senator James Lankford, leading the negotiations, highlighted the surge of people entering the US from Mexico, characterising it as “spiralling out of control” on CBS. He emphasised the necessity of implementing tools to regain control and prevent chaos at the southern border. However, some immigration advocates, including certain Democrats, criticise proposed changes, asserting that they would weaken protections for those in desperate need and not effectively address border challenges. Senator Chris Murphy, a top Democratic negotiator, acknowledged the White House’s increased involvement in talks while deeming some Republican policy demands as “unreasonable” on NBC’s Meet the Press. Much of the negotiating is taking place in private, but some of the issues under discussion are known: asylum standards, humanitarian parole and fast-track deportation authority, among others. A look at what they are and what might happen if there are changes: Is the use of humanitarian parole an end run around Congress? Using humanitarian parole, the US government can let people into the country by essentially bypassing the regular immigration process. This power is supposed to be used on a case-by-case basis for “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit." Migrants are usually admitted for a pre-determined period and there’s no path toward US citizenship. Over the years, administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have used humanitarian parole to admit people into the US and help groups of people from all over the world. It’s been used to admit people from Hungary in the 1950s, from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos during the latter half of the 1970s, and Iraqi Kurds who had worked with the US in the mid-1990s, according to research by the Cato Institute. Under Biden, the US has relied heavily on humanitarian parole. The US airlifted nearly 80,000 Afghans from Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, and brought them to the US after the Taliban takeover. The US has admitted tens of thousands of Ukrainians who fled after the Russian invasion. [caption id=“attachment_13487892” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Migrants who crossed the Rio Grande and entered the US from Mexico are lined up for processing by US Customs and Border Protection. AP[/caption] In January the Democratic administration announced a plan to admit 30,000 people a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela via humanitarian parole, provided those migrants had a financial sponsor and flew to the US instead of going to the US-Mexico border for entry. The latest US government figures show that nearly 270,000 people had been admitted into the country through October under that program. Separately, 324,000 people have gotten appointments through a mobile app called CBP One that is used to grant parole to people at land crossings with Mexico. Republicans have described the programs as essentially an end run around Congress by letting in large numbers of people who otherwise would have no path to be admitted. Texas sued the administration to stop the program aimed at Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans. What might change with asylum? Asylum is a type of protection that allows a migrant to stay in the US and have a path to American citizenship. To qualify for asylum, someone has to demonstrate fear of persecution back home due to a fairly specific set of criteria: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinions. Asylum-seekers must be on US soil when they ask for this protection. **Also Read: Want to live the American Dream? Why the EB-5 visa is a better option than the H-1B** They generally go through an initial screening called a credible fear interview. If they are determined to have a chance of getting asylum, they are allowed to stay in the US to pursue their case in immigration court. That process can take years. In the meantime, asylum-seekers can start to work, get married, have children and create a life. Critics say the problem is that most people do not end up getting asylum when their case finally makes it to immigration court. But they say migrants know that if they claim asylum, they essentially will be allowed to stay in America for years. “People aren’t necessarily coming to apply for asylum as much to access that asylum adjudication process,” said Andrew Arthur, a former immigration court judge and fellow at the Centre for Immigration Studies, which advocates for less immigration in the US. [caption id=“attachment_13487912” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] A deal to provide further US assistance to Ukraine by year-end appears to be increasingly out of reach for President Joe Biden. Republicans are insisting on pairing the funding with changes to America’s immigration and border policies. AP[/caption] Some of what lawmakers are discussing would raise the bar that migrants need to meet during that initial credible fear interview. Those who do not meet it would be sent home. But Paul Schmidt, a retired immigration court judge who blogs about immigration court issues, said the credible fear interview was never intended to be so tough. Migrants are doing the interview soon after arriving at the border from an often arduous and traumatising journey, he said. Schmidt said the interview is more of an “initial screening” to weed out those with frivolous asylum claims. Schmidt also questioned the argument that most migrants fail their final asylum screening. He said some immigration judges apply overly restrictive standards and that the system is so backlogged that it is hard to know exactly what the most recent and reliable statistics are. What is expedited removal? Expedited removal, created in 1996 by Congress, basically allows low-level immigration officers, as opposed to an immigration judge, to quickly deport certain immigrants. It was not widely used until 2004 and generally has been used to deport people apprehended within 100 miles of the Mexican or Canadian border and within two weeks of their arrival. **Also Read: US issues 140,000 visas to Indian students: Why it is the destination of choice** Defenders say it relieves the burden on the backlogged immigration courts. Immigration advocates say its use is prone to errors and does not give migrants enough protections, such as having a lawyer help them argue their case. As president, Republican Donald Trump pushed to expand this fast-track deportation policy nationwide and for longer periods of time. Opponents sued and that expansion never happened. What might these changes do? Much of the disagreement over these proposed changes comes down to whether people think deterrence works. Arthur, the former immigration court judge, thinks it does. He said changes to the credible fear asylum standards and restrictions on the use of humanitarian parole would be a “game changer." He said it would be a “costly endeavour” as the government would have to detain and deport many more migrants than today. But, he argued, eventually the numbers of people arriving would drop. But others, like Schmidt, the retired immigration court judge, say migrants are so desperate, they will come anyway and make dangerous journeys to evade Border Patrol. “Desperate people do desperate things,” he said. With inputs from AP