A New Rule Which Is Not Yet In Effect Will Allow The Government To Expeditiously Remove Asylum Seekers Who Meet Certain Criteria And Pose A Security Risk

The changes  that have been talked about for months will be published in what is called the Federal Register. There will be a 30 day period for public comment. These changes will affect people who they believe have been in trouble with the law or have been members of certain criminal groups in their countries. It seems like it will not affect many people.

The difference is that under current law if a person is found to be in one of these circumstances such as being a member of a terrorist group and this is discovered at the first interview they still have the right to wait for the first hearing which can take several weeks or more and contest the case, but under this new proposal it appears that they can expeditiously deport the immigrant. Under current law, a migrant who arrives at the border and is subjected to what it calls a credible fear interview, one of the criteria on which asylum is based, can continue with the process even if they have a criminal record or allegedly pose a security risk until a judge determines whether they qualify for asylum, but with this change the official at the initial stage can make the decision instead of waiting for a judge.

RELOCATION TO THEIR OWN COUNTRY

Another big change is that they want to be stricter in the initial interviews regarding the rule that has to do with what is called relocation in their own country. This means that if they consider that the person can live safely in another place in their country they do not deserve asylum. Although this rule has always been part of the asylum law, they have not used it much, especially in the interviews at the border.

With the new proposal they want to use it more, asking for details and information from the immigrant about why the immigrant cannot live in another place in their own country. For example, if a person from Mexico says he has problems in Michoacan, why can’t he just go to live in Cancún? Obviously this is more complicated in countries as big as Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil among others.

MAY INCREASE DEPORTATIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE 

Lawyers and immigrant advocacy groups say that they will use these new rules to disqualify people easily even if the alleged problem does not exist. For example, a person who has a tattoo but has never been a member of or had anything to do with any criminal group, but according to the asylum officer is a terrorist or affiliated with similar groups and then will no longer have a chance to defend themself.

Another problem is that interviews are sometimes conducted very quickly within days of arriving in the United States, people who have suffered a lot along the way, and it is very difficult for these people to get a lawyer or legal representative also because credible or reasonable fear interviews are conducted in rural places where there is no access to legal representatives.

WHY DON'T THEY MAKE CHANGES TO SUPPORT MIGRANTS 

Other pro-immigrant politicians are criticizing the Biden administration because they are making changes that make things worse for immigrants and have done nothing to help immigrants who have long lived in the U.S. and still do not have legal status or work permits such as spouses of citizens or farm workers. 

According to Senator Alex Padilla of California it is time for the president to use his voice and powers to extend protected status to many immigrants already in the United States and also to extend TPS temporary protected status to more people from countries with serious problems such as catastrophes, wars, violence, etc. so they can work legally in the United States. 

SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER 

I am asking people to send comments to the Federal Register so that they do not make these negative changes and instead promote positive changes. We know that we are in an election year and that the Democrats, especially Biden, are afraid that they will use the supposed invasion of the border as a political weapon, although this is not really the problem. The problem is that they will eliminate rights guaranteed by international law.