The border chief for President Joe Biden has published draft rules that will enable low-level officials to award the enormous prize of citizenship and asylum to myriad economic migrants quickly and quietly, without any oversight by judges or Congress.
Krikorian stated that officials “claim it’s streamlining it, which it really is not.” The regulation’s goal is to significantly increase the number of asylum seekers who are successful and to speed up the process as much as possible.
Alejandro Mayorkas (secretary at the Department of Homeland Security) allowed more than 1,000,000 economic migrants to cross the southern border in 2021. This was alongside legal inflows of approximately 1 million legal immigrants and myriad visa workers. Each year, the country is enriched by approximately two million immigrants as nearly 4 million Americans start looking for work.
He is a Cuban-born pro-migration zealot. His bureaucratic campaign to create a network for new migration routes that operate beyond the numerical limits established by Congress and in conjunction with the drug cartel labor-trafficking networks is centered on regulation.
March 24, 512-page regulation, converts the preliminary “Credible fear Interview” process for new arrivals to a fast-track, full scale asylum hearing. Migrants can apply for political asylum in a facetoface interview with a low level agency official.
According to current regulations, migrants may request a Credible Fear interview. They can stay for up to three years in the country if they are approved. Then, a judge will decide if the evidence is sufficient to grant asylum. Asylum is a big prize. It allows migrants to get jobs, rent homes, become citizens, and bring their relatives into the United States via chain migration.
The massive inflow reduces Americans’ wages and drives up rents. However, it increases Wall Street values for business groups that support the progressive pro-migration advocacy.
Advocates for Congress’ authority in immigration policy will likely sue the new rule.
Officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), persuaded corporate journalists to present the new border entrance as a minor streamlining of the existing process.
The new policy, which was released by the administration on Thursday as an interim final ruling, will allow asylum seekers to have their claims heard and assessed by asylum officers, instead of immigration judges.
Administration officials stated that the goal is to have the whole process take six months instead of the current average of five years.
The Washington Post reported March 24, 2009:
A USCIS official said that there would be a slow, careful ramp-up of cases into the system. He did not want to be identified. “We don’t anticipate placing a lot of people in this process within the first weeks or months to ensure that the process works the way we expect it to.”
Krikorian said that this “is pushing the authority further down within the bureaucracy, to decide who gets a permanent residence in the United States.” He continued:
Asylum is an amazing power, because it allows Congress to bypass [annual legal immigration] caps. It is also problematic for bureaucrats at lower levels.
They will find it difficult to resist the temptation of granting asylum extravagantly because of the psychic benefits they will receive. They will feel warm and fuzzy because they approve far more asylum applications than they should.
Pro-migration advocates from DHS’ U.S. will adjudicate the pending asylum-award application. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency (USCIS).
Krikorian stated that the new process doesn’t significantly restrict or reduce other avenues to asylum. Krikorian said that even if the USCIS worker fails to convince a migrant, they can still use the multi-layered process to request asylum from judges. They can appeal against a rejection.
Krikorian stated that pro-migration groups push asylum rules beyond their original purpose.
Asylum poses a grave and even existential threat for developed countries. It is a 70-year old institution, which was established at the start of the Cold War.
Mayorkas and others are using asylum laws to increase immigration into the United States beyond the 1990 annual limits. Mayorkas, for example, is said to be drafting regulations to expand the justifications to get asylum to include fear of non-political crimes.
Krikorian said that Mayorkas’ regulations “are an attempt to bypass Congress, and administratively turn into law the Emma Lazarus poem,” Krikorian explained.
Lazarus’ 1883 poem has no legal status, but it is supported by open-border progressives. It reads:
I want your tired, your needy.
The huddled masses long to be free from all the constraints.
Your squalorous shore.
These, homeless people, send them to me.
About one-third of Americans don’t accept the “Nation of Immigrants” narrative.
We are polarized because of our differences in life styles. What should America look like when we’re fighting for different cultures? It’s a difficult time. We’re also stressed by economic dislocation and jobs moving offshore.
Krikorian stated that the new regulation “clearly imposes costs on Americans because it’s increasing immigration.”
The D.C. establishment has used many excuses and explanations since at least 1990 to justify its policy to extract tens of million of migrants and visa workers form poor countries to work, consume, and rent for various U.S. CEOs and investors.
Extraction migration is a self-serving economic strategy that has no end. It’s harmful for ordinary Americans as it reduces their career opportunities, lowers their wages and housing costs, and pushes out tens of thousands of Americans from the labor market.
The American economy suffers from the effects of extraction migration. It reduces productivity and their political influence.
Because it allows the wealthy to ignore the poor and disillusioned Americans at bottom of society, an economy built on extract migration can also radicalize America’s democratic, compromise-promoting civic culture.
This economic strategy also kills many immigrants, separates foreign families, extracts wealth from poor countries, and leaves many people homeless.
According to multiple polls, wealth-shifting extractive migration policies are not popular. According to polls, there is widespread opposition to labor migration and the inflows of temporary workers into jobs that are sought after by U.S. college graduates.
Opposition is growing. It is anti-establishment and multiracial, transsex, nonracist, class-based.