Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMcConnell and Trump Lied About the Contents of Their Immigration and Border Security Compromise Bill
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
...
For whole thread, see https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/01/22/the-senate-majority-leader-and-the-president-lied-about-the-contents-of-their-immigration-and-border-security-compromise-bill/
Part 2 - an analysis from the Cato Institute - right wing, of course, but they like immigration:
Requires Dreamers to reapply: P. 1235 requires Dreamers already in good standing in DACA to reapply for status, even though DACA would have allowed them simply to renew their status without refiling all of their paperwork and evidence. This requirement is a substantial burden, and most applicants will end up having to hire immigration attorneys to fulfill it.
Much higher evidentiary burden: P. 1235 increases the evidentiary standard for Dreamers to prove their eligibility to receive DACA from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing. The only higher standard of proof in the law is beyond a reasonable doubt. People win multi-million judgments based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. Clear and convincing is often used for cases like withdrawing life support. In the immigration context, USCIS explains that preponderance of the evidence is usually the standardmeaning that even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, he should approve if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is probably true or more likely than not. Clear and convincing is used rarely for cases like to rebut the presumption of a prior fraudulent marriage (i.e. for applicants the government has reason to be suspicious of). Dreamers proving that they entered before June 2007 or that they resided continuously, for example, just became much more difficult under this legislation.
Imposes a Monetary Fine/Doubles Application Cost: DACA, the Dream Act, and other proposals to legalize Dreamers have usually left off the monetary fine for being in the country illegally that proposals to legalize other immigrants have customarily had. This is because no oneincluding Trumpblames Dreamers for being in the country illegally. They were brought here as children. Yet this bill does contain a fine or penalty but rebrands it as a $500 security fee (p. 1243). This fine comes on top of the normal fees for processing the application, and it essentially doubles the cost of the currently $495 application. According to the Migration Policy Institutes analysis of why eligible Dreamers didnt apply for DACA, not having $500 cash was the number 1 reason. Anecdotes from Dreamers themselves support this.
Public charge rule: P. 1238 applies the public charge ground of inadmissibility in INA 212(a)(4) to Dreamerssomething DACA did not require. While DACA recipients are currently ineligible, and would remain ineligible under this bill, for almost all federal benefits, the Trump administrations pending public charge rule would ban anyone who is even 5 percent dependent on any level of government, even state or local aid, from receiving legal status. This could include numerous Dreamers in states such as California and New York, which offer state benefits to Dreamers. Dreamers in DACA have grown up in America since a very young age and have lived in the country for over a decade. They are Americans. Treating them as if they are new immigrants does not represent the view of most Americans.
...
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/01/22/the-senate-majority-leader-and-the-president-lied-about-the-contents-of-their-immigration-and-border-security-compromise-bill-part-ii/
Much higher evidentiary burden: P. 1235 increases the evidentiary standard for Dreamers to prove their eligibility to receive DACA from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing. The only higher standard of proof in the law is beyond a reasonable doubt. People win multi-million judgments based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. Clear and convincing is often used for cases like withdrawing life support. In the immigration context, USCIS explains that preponderance of the evidence is usually the standardmeaning that even if the director has some doubt as to the truth, he should approve if the petitioner submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence that leads the director to believe that the claim is probably true or more likely than not. Clear and convincing is used rarely for cases like to rebut the presumption of a prior fraudulent marriage (i.e. for applicants the government has reason to be suspicious of). Dreamers proving that they entered before June 2007 or that they resided continuously, for example, just became much more difficult under this legislation.
Imposes a Monetary Fine/Doubles Application Cost: DACA, the Dream Act, and other proposals to legalize Dreamers have usually left off the monetary fine for being in the country illegally that proposals to legalize other immigrants have customarily had. This is because no oneincluding Trumpblames Dreamers for being in the country illegally. They were brought here as children. Yet this bill does contain a fine or penalty but rebrands it as a $500 security fee (p. 1243). This fine comes on top of the normal fees for processing the application, and it essentially doubles the cost of the currently $495 application. According to the Migration Policy Institutes analysis of why eligible Dreamers didnt apply for DACA, not having $500 cash was the number 1 reason. Anecdotes from Dreamers themselves support this.
Public charge rule: P. 1238 applies the public charge ground of inadmissibility in INA 212(a)(4) to Dreamerssomething DACA did not require. While DACA recipients are currently ineligible, and would remain ineligible under this bill, for almost all federal benefits, the Trump administrations pending public charge rule would ban anyone who is even 5 percent dependent on any level of government, even state or local aid, from receiving legal status. This could include numerous Dreamers in states such as California and New York, which offer state benefits to Dreamers. Dreamers in DACA have grown up in America since a very young age and have lived in the country for over a decade. They are Americans. Treating them as if they are new immigrants does not represent the view of most Americans.
...
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/01/22/the-senate-majority-leader-and-the-president-lied-about-the-contents-of-their-immigration-and-border-security-compromise-bill-part-ii/
This is, I presume, what McConnell wants voted on in the senate, alongside a bill to reopen government.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 978 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
McConnell and Trump Lied About the Contents of Their Immigration and Border Security Compromise Bill (Original Post)
muriel_volestrangler
Jan 2019
OP
GOP are traitors and our enemy, we should no more negotiate with them than we would putin
Eliot Rosewater
Jan 2019
#1
Eliot Rosewater
(31,268 posts)1. GOP are traitors and our enemy, we should no more negotiate with them than we would putin
Freethinker65
(10,212 posts)2. We need a clean bill to fund and reopen government.
Evidently McConnell's plan is to send a shitty bill to Pelosi and dare her to have the Democratic House vote against it. Then they, GOP and Trump, will say Pelosi and the Democrats own the shutdown. Seems like Schumer got played again. Kill the vote in the Senate, no closure unless it is a clean bill, and the clean bill gets voted on first.