Thanks to Linda Chavez for the clear-eyed review of the Biden Administration's new policy on refugees from Venezuela.
I'm the opposite of an Open Borders advocate. I'd be totally supportive of a crackdown on economic migrants and citizens of failed and failing states trying to cut the legal immigration line by jumping the border or overstaying a visa, including speedy adjudication and deportations of those making specious asylum claims. However, Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans meet the black-letter law definition of refugees in the Refugee Convention -- a person who, by reason of a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it." These people are entitled by US and international law to an asylum hearing. They should not be sent back to the control of the dictator from whom they fled, no matter how much oil he currently controls, or how many promises he makes to improve his behavior in the future. We know exactly what Nicolás Maduro's promises are worth.
There are plenty of countries whose citizens an immigration officer is in a position to know don't qualify for asylum. Those cases shouldn't need to go before an immigration judge, and the law should change to reflect that. And I agree that we need a lot more immigration judges to deal with the real cases and the close cases.
I would like to see that, too. I can understand if Mexico chooses not to accept that agreement, but if they do, they should at least agree to stop allowing non-citizens to transit their country in order to attempt to enter ours illegally.
Thanks to Linda Chavez for the clear-eyed review of the Biden Administration's new policy on refugees from Venezuela.
I'm the opposite of an Open Borders advocate. I'd be totally supportive of a crackdown on economic migrants and citizens of failed and failing states trying to cut the legal immigration line by jumping the border or overstaying a visa, including speedy adjudication and deportations of those making specious asylum claims. However, Venezuelans, Cubans, and Nicaraguans meet the black-letter law definition of refugees in the Refugee Convention -- a person who, by reason of a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it." These people are entitled by US and international law to an asylum hearing. They should not be sent back to the control of the dictator from whom they fled, no matter how much oil he currently controls, or how many promises he makes to improve his behavior in the future. We know exactly what Nicolás Maduro's promises are worth.
There are plenty of countries whose citizens an immigration officer is in a position to know don't qualify for asylum. Those cases shouldn't need to go before an immigration judge, and the law should change to reflect that. And I agree that we need a lot more immigration judges to deal with the real cases and the close cases.
I would like to see that, too. I can understand if Mexico chooses not to accept that agreement, but if they do, they should at least agree to stop allowing non-citizens to transit their country in order to attempt to enter ours illegally.
I think that we could help fund them. And on your last point, we just disagree.