“What they're doing is giving low-level bureaucrats authority equivalent to Congress as a whole to decide how many foreigners should move to the United States and become American citizens,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
Government officials “say it's streamlining the process, which it is truly not,” Krikorian stated. “The goal of the regulation is to dramatically increase the number of people successfully getting asylum and to speed that process up as much as possible.”
Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since February 2021, has permitted more than one million economic migrants through the US southern border with Mexico, in addition to the legal flow of a variety of visa-holders and approximately one million illegal immigrants. This flow would add around two million people each year to the United States with around four million Americans beginning to look for work.
Mayorkas was born in Cuba and is a pro-migration enthusiast. New immigration regulations are the gist of his administration's campaign to establish a network of new pathways to migration operating beyond the numerical limitations established by Congress and alongside labor-trafficking networks operated by drug cartels.
This 512-page March 24 law changes the preliminary “credible fear” interview process for those who are new to the country to a full-scale, fast-track asylum hearing, in which immigrants are able to obtain political asylum through an in-person interview with a low-level immigration agency official.
According to current regulations, immigrants can request a credible fear interview. If they're approved, they'll be able to remain within the United States for a couple of years until a judge decides whether their evidence is sufficient to justify the granting of asylum. Receiving asylum is a major prize, permitting immigrants to find jobs and rent houses and become American citizens, while also allowing relatives to join them in their new home country of the United State via chain migration.
“This will only encourage more illegal immigration and fraudulent asylum claims, which is the Biden administration's end goal,” read a statement issued by Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
This massive inflow of immigrants reduces Americans’ wages and pushes up their rents; however, it also boosts Wall Street values for the business groups that support the pro-migration campaigning of progressives. The new regulation could be the subject of a lawsuit from supporters of Congress being the authority that determines immigration policies.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security have convinced corporate journalists to present the new border-entrance rules as a “small improvement” to the current system.
According to the New York Times, the new rules outlined in the newly released policy announced by the administration will allow some asylum seekers to have their cases heard and evaluated by asylum officers instead of immigration judges.
Officials from the administration have declared that the whole procedure would take just six months, compared to the current average of around five years.
The Washington Post reported: “’There will be a very careful, slow ramp-up of cases into this system,’ explained a USCIS official, who spoke to reporters under the condition that the official never be named. ‘We do not anticipate having a large number of individuals placed in this process in the first weeks and months as we’ll make sure the process functions the way we anticipate that it should.’”
CBS reported that according to sources involved in the debate, the administration is considering the possibility of constructing campus-like processing facilities to interview asylum seekers in safer environments compared to the Customs and Border Protection holding facilities, which aren't specifically designed to accommodate migrants for more than three days. No such facilities have yet been constructed.
However, “this is pushing the authority further down in the bureaucracy to decide who gets to live permanently in the United States,” Krikorian observed. “The ability to grant asylum is a fantastic power as it allows for an opportunity to circumvent [Congress's legal caps] on [annual legal] immigration. Handing that power over to low-level bureaucrats is difficult.”
It's likely going to be difficult for officials to resist the urge to grant asylum lavishly to reap the psychological benefits they'll receive. They'll enjoy a euphoric feeling when they approve more asylum requests than they should.
The asylum-awarding process is pending but will be handled by advocates for migration rights within the DHS's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The new system doesn't significantly limit other options for seeking asylum, Krikorian pointed out. For instance, in the event that a potential immigrant fails to convince the USCIS employee, he or she could continue to use the multi-layered system to petition a judge for asylum and could appeal a judge’s decision.
According to Krikorian, asylum officers can appeal to a judge, as it's essentially a “Heads I win, tails you lose” rule. It's an extra bite of the apple, and the first bite of the USCIS asylum officers’ apple won't be an adversarial one like the immigration court’s. It'll be a “Hold my hand, and tell me where the bad man touched you” interview.
“It's set up to maximize the share of people getting asylum,” the official said. “This is yet another way anti-borders forces can pry open the borders of the United States.”
Pro-migration groups push asylum laws way beyond their original goals, according to Krikorian. Asylum poses an enormous, actual threat to the developed world. It's a 70-year-old institution that was established in a different world, at the start of the Cold War, in the days when it was available only to a small number of Russian ballerinas.
However, Mayorkas as well as others use asylum laws to increase the number of people who enter the United States beyond the annual numbers established by Congress in 1990. For instance, Mayorkas is reportedly drafting an amendment to the accepted reasons for seeking asylum to include the fear of crime that is not politically motivated.
Mayorkas’s guidelines can be described as “an attempt to bypass Congress and administratively turn the Emma Lazarus poem into law,” Krikorian said.
Emma Lazarus’s poem, “The New Colossus” written in 1883, is not legally recognized but is a favorite of open-border progressives. It reads: “Give me your tired, your poor; your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore; send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
About one-third of Americans are in agreement with this ” Nation of Immigrants” storyline.
“We're trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” declared Mayorkas ally Rep. Ro Khanna (D.CA). He told the New York Times on March 21, “What is the reason why our politics are so divided? I think it's because we, the progressives, attempt to create something unique. When my parents moved into the United States, the Immigration and Naturalization Act was being approved. Before that, they did not allow Indians generally [to] enter America. The immigration rate was 90 percent European. Nowadays, it's around 15 percent European. It's a nation that's 60 percent white and non-Hispanic. We're striving to be the first multiracial and multi-ethnic superpower on the planet. What do you mean by that? Will [it] be a peaceful, linear line that runs beginning with [former] President Barack Obama from now on? I'm not getting it. It's difficult to do what we're doing.”
Americans are all engaged in a battle over different ways of living, fighting over different cultures and what the ideal America should be. Americans are in a very difficult period and are also stressed with the economic turmoil and jobs moving offshore.
The new rule “clearly imposes a cost on Americans because it's increasing immigration,” Krikorian said.
Since at least 1990, the D.C. establishment has used many justifications and arguments to justify its practice of taking in hundreds of millions of immigrants from Latin America as well as those from countries with poor populations to work and live as consumers and renters for the benefit of diverse US investors and CEOs.
This self-interested, economically driven strategy of removing migrants does not have a stopping point. It's detrimental to average Americans as it limits their job chances, decreases their wage and salary increases, raises their housing costs as well as pushes thousands of them out of the workforce.
The extraction of migrants also impedes Americans’ productivity, lowers their influence in the political arena, erodes US workplace rights, and expands the disparities in wealth between Democrats’ coastal states and Republicans' Heartland states.
A system of economic-extraction migration also alters America as a democratic, compromise-based civil culture as it permits elites with wealth to overlook the plight of Americans on the lowest levels of the social ladder. This economic plan also causes the deaths of many immigrants, splits foreign families, and removes riches from poor homeland countries.
It's not surprising that this wealth-shifting, extraction-based migration policy is incredibly unpopular, as evidenced by a broad range of polls. The polls reveal a deep and widespread opposition to the immigration of laborers and the influx of temporary workers to jobs coveted by highly educated US graduates.
The movement is growing because it’s popular, anti-establishment multiracial, cross-gender, not racist or class-based, bipartisan, sensible, persistent–and it acknowledges the bond of solidarity that Americans owe each other.