President Trump signs a memorandum requesting new guidelines for the asylum process: citing “large amounts of fraud” from those claiming asylum
On Monday April 29, 2019 President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum dictating new requirements for the asylum process for those seeking asylum in the United States of America.
Designed to “ensure legitimate asylum-seekers can access asylum while more efficiently processing and removing illegal migrants who are not eligible and who do not qualify.”President Donald Trump
Within 90 days, the Attorney General and Homeland Security Secretary must propose regulations to:
- Streamline the court proceedings for aliens who pass initial fear determinations;
- Adjudicate all asylum applications in immigration courts within 180 days of filing;
- Establish fees for asylum and work permit applications;
- Bar aliens who entered the country illegally from receiving provisional work permits prior to asylum relief; and
- Immediately revoke the work authorization of aliens who receive final removal orders.
Asylum seekers have flooded the border in recent months, with over 100,000 requests in the month of March 2019. Considering those who are granted Asylum status are given the same financial assistance as those who come in as refugees these numbers are sustainable for the country. The US spent spent over $800,000,000 in 2018 on Refugee spending, and it is not unreasonable to assert that number will only rise. We simply must put limitations on the amount of asylum seekers that we allow.
Statistic and facts regarding those seeking asylum:
[ Cited from: Numbers USA]
- Only about 12 out of every 100 aliens subject to expedited removal who claim asylum will be granted it;
- About half of all aliens who claim credible fear claim and are subsequently placed in removal proceedings do not actually apply for asylum;
- The number of aliens who do not show up to court and are ordered removed in absentia has soared;
- From FY 2014 to FY 2018, roughly half of removal orders issued for Unaccompanied Alien Children were issued in absentia.
Supreme Court hands Trump administration a victory in immigration battle
This is a good thing. There are about half a million people living in the United States who have been ordered to be removed or are waiting for removal hearings…we need this. Well done Supreme Court. Well done.
Immigrant and Native Fertility 2008 to 2017
As someone who is not a fan of the idea of replacing the native born American population with foreign born individuals, I find it heartening to know that we are being replaced at a slower rate than possible for total replacement.
In June 2013, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said “Immigrants are more fertile.” He and many others have argued for large-scale immigration on the grounds that America’s aging society needs immigrants and their higher fertility to, in Bush’s words, “rebuild the demographic pyramid.” However, demographers have generally found that, although immigration can significantly increase the overall size of a nation’s population, its impact on slowing the aging of American society is very limited. To the extent that immigration can impact aging, it is partly due to immigrants’ higher fertility. However, immigrant fertility has declined significantly since 2008, as has the fertility of the native-born. Immigrant fertility has declined more steeply than that of natives; as a result, immigration’s small impact on the overall fertility rate has become more modest.
- The birth rate for women in their reproductive years (ages 15-50) declined more than twice as much for immigrants as for natives between 2008 and 2017.
- The birth rate for immigrant women of reproductive age declined from 76 to 62 births per thousand from 2008 to 2017 — a decline of 14 births per thousand. In contrast, native fertility declined from 55 to 50 births per thousand — a decline of five births per thousand.
- Although still higher than that of natives, immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation’s overall birth rate. The presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand (3.9 percent).
- Immigration has a minor impact because the difference between immigrant and native fertility is too small to significantly change the nation’s overall birth rate.
- Even if the number of immigrant women 15 to 50 doubled along with births to this population, it would still only raise the overall national birth rate for women in their reproductive years by 2.6 percent.1
- In addition to births per thousand, fertility is often measured using the total fertility rate (TFR). The TFR reports the number of children a woman can be expected to have in her lifetime based on current patterns.
- Like the birth rate, the TFR of immigrants has declined more rapidly than the TFR for natives since 2008. In 2008, immigrant women had a TFR of 2.75 children; by 2017 it had fallen to 2.18 — a 0.6-child decline. For natives it declined from 2.07 to 1.76 — a 0.3-child decline.
- Like births per thousand, the presence of immigrants in the country has only a small impact on the nation’s overall TFR. In 2017, immigrants only increased the nation’s overall TFR by 0.08 children (4.4 percent).
- If present trends continue, the TFR of immigrants may drop below 2.1 in the next few years, the level necessary to replace the existing population. An immigrant TFR of less than 2.1 would mean that, in the long run, immigration would add to the aging of American society.
- Another reason that immigration may in the long term add to population aging is that for every major racial/ethnic group sending large numbers of immigrants, fertility is below the replacement level among the native-born generation.
- In 2017, three-fourths of immigrant women in their reproductive years were either Hispanic or Asian. The TFR of native-born Hispanic women was 1.85 children and it was only 1.44 children for native-born Asians — both well below replacement level.
- Although immigration has only a small impact on overall fertility and aging, it has a significant impact on population size. For example, new immigrants and births to immigrants between 2000 and 2017 added 33.9 million people to the country — equal to more than three-fourths of U.S. population growth over this time period.2
Eleventh Circuit: DACA Recipients Not Lawfully Present:
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients are not entitled to enroll in certain Georgia colleges and universities that bar those without “lawful presence.” The Court ruled that the DACA program does not confer lawful presence on recipients, and that Georgia’s admissions bar does not violate a DACA recipient’s right to equal protection.
The 11th Circuit’s opinion, which closely tracks a friend-of-the-court brief the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) filed in the case, determined that DACA recipients are “inadmissible and thus removable” under federal law. “As DACA recipients, they simply were given a reprieve from potential removal; that does not mean they are in any way ‘lawfully present’ under the [Immigration and Nationality] act,” the ruling said. “The Regents could have decided to prioritize those students who are more likely to stay in Georgia after graduation, and the Regents might have decided that DACA recipients are less likely to do so because they are removable at any time. That is, the Regents could have reasonably concluded that it would be unwise to invest state resources in DACA recipients.”
SPLC Grows Assets to Over Half a Billion, but Cracks Begin to Show
Immigration Control Is Highlighted in the President’s Proposed FY 2020 Budget
Given the incredibly disappointing progress President Trump has made thus far in controlling immigration, this is hard to believe. However, if it turns out to be true, and some of it becomes a reality…..it would be uplifting indeed