So some of the people who want better enforcement against illegal immigration are criticizing Trump for signing the immigration compromise bill because they see “de facto” amnesty in it. De facto, for those who need it, means not formally or specifically implemented, but practically in force.
Here are some examples:
This bill is tantamount to an illegal immigration “stimulus” — de facto amnesty to any “sponsor,” family member or “potential sponsor” of an unaccompanied minor. #ChainMigrationAmnesty— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) February 14, 2019
The Republicans got https://t.co/cwgIMbW4GX this worth a Wall?It protects sponsored children and allows them amnesty basically with no detainment or questioning of their sponsors. We just ok'd child trafficking.— Michael Reagan (@ReaganWorld) February 16, 2019
Hannity notes Jessica Vaughan's criticism of the "potential sponsor" amnesty. Says he "doesn't care" if Trump signs the bill, but he knows Trump will get the wall, it's a deal to let Trump use emergency powers. Trump "on solid legal ground." Big Picture: Trump is fighting! Umm..— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) February 15, 2019
Keep calling House -- 202 224 3121 -- to oppose poison-pill spending special. Trump's emergency won't close the giant "potential sponsor" amnesty. Bill needs to be defeated and edited— Mickey Kaus (@kausmickey) February 15, 2019
This “deal” provides de facto amnesty for anyone claiming to be even in the household of a potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien minor AND is thus the “Child Trafficking Promotion Act” cc: @realDonaldTrump— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) February 14, 2019
I will be voting NO on this disastrous 1169 page bill. It increases spending, fails to secure the border, empowers cartels to traffick children to “sponsors” in the US receiving amnesty, punts congressional duty to the Presidency, & may well undermine any emergency declaration.— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) February 15, 2019
Sooooo is there any truth to this? Well it sounds like there IS a provision for sponsors or potential sponsor of unaccompanied children. That definitely seems like a loophole that some might abuse for very ill ends, to help illegal immigration at best, and child slavery at worst.
Here’s the counterargument – it’s from a DHS official who says this provision is being mis-represented:
That ‘amnesty’ claim is based on section 224 of the budget — which appears, on first glance, to block the deportation of many people who are illegally in the U.S.
That’s because it states that no funds may be used to detain or deport any “sponsor” or “potential sponsor” of an “unaccompanied alien child.” It adds that even any “member of a household” of a “potential sponsor” is now immune from deportation.
But a DHS official told Fox News that terms like “potential sponsor” have precise meanings in Department of Homeland Security regulations — meanings that severely limit the number of people the budget keeps safe from deportation.
For example, to be a “potential sponsor” according to the DHS regulations, one must file significant paperwork — such as showing ID (U.S. or foreign) and proof of residency. The adult applying must also submit documents about the child.
Further, because the bill only applies to kids who are unaccompanied, it does not provide protection for those bringing kids into the US.
That would significantly limit the number of people to whom the no-deportation provision applies.
This is the key explanation:
The section was added to ensure that people coming to pick up kids in custody did not find themselves deported for showing up to pick up the kid.
OK, that kinda makes sense. Whether you think that’s a good idea or not, it doesn’t sound like it would apply to millions.
Here is the counter-argument to the counter-argument:
“We still have some serious concerns about the provision,” Chmielenski told Fox News. “It still protects these sponsors and/or relatives who make it into the US. That’s not a precedent we should be setting.”
He noted that, despite the paperwork DHS demands of someone to become a “potential sponsor,” some might still try to game the system and that it could still encourage “unaccompanied” kids to be sent over the border.
Here’s ANOTHER issue people had with the bill – it has to do with a provision saying local authorities could veto the building of the wall in their jurisdiction. Ann Coulter is especially fond of this argument.
Here’s the counter-argument to that:
But the DHS official told Fox News on background that the exact language in the budget — “confer and seek to reach mutual agreement” – nowhere requires the federal government to actually reach an agreement before building fences.
Rather, it just requires DHS to consult with local governments – something DHS already generally does, the official noted.
Again, here’s a counter-argument to the counter-argument:
Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies, says he remains skeptical.
“I hope DHS is right, I just think it’s wishful thinking,” he told Fox News. “Do you really want to bet that a judge won’t read that differently?”
But Trump allies say that the information from DHS shines light on why Trump ultimately signed the bill after reviewing it. Some warned about “disinformation” on Thursday.
“Just spoke with the White House. There will be NO Amnesty and NO path to citizenship,” Sebastian Gorka, a former deputy assistant to President Trump and a Fox News contributor, tweeted Thursday.
Conservatives need to stop drinking the Influence Operations disinformation that’s swirling out there.— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) February 15, 2019
Just spoke with the White House.
There will be NO Amnesty and NO path to citizenship.
Mick and the team have already found EIGHT Billion dollars for the wall!
Stay tuned .. pic.twitter.com/0m0xKzQYKF
Yeah I dunno, Gorka is not the most trustworthy pundit on this kind of stuff. One of the things that this argument depends on is that Trump is a careful reader of bills and understands the subtle nuances of immigration law. Ahem. I have very little faith in the truth of that premise.
But there you have it, those are the biggest critiques against the immigration legislation that Trump accepted. Let us know what you think in the comments.