yesl.. that is what the news media said and I have no confidence for them. You would be a good reporter on the news media team.
I find that the reason is the administration would have the discretion to catch and release up to 5,000 inadmissible migrants per day — almost 2 million per year.
Solved nothing.
How would you know? Seriously when you say things like this without any support you are only showing that you are the gullible one in these matters. You wanted to imply that I was but your post demonstrates that you only have massive projection. You listened to the lies of Republcans again. Here is what you do not understand about the news. There are reliable sources. For them being honest is more important than who is in power. If they are shown to be reporting inaccurately they lose trust. They lose advertisers, They lose money. The more honest that they are the more money that they make. Biased news sources such as OAN on the right or The Rumble on the left have a much smaller audience as a result of their bias and their advertisers often mimic that. The large companies that want to sell to everyone are going to invest their add money in the middle mostly. In other words enlightened self interest is what keeps sources such as the AP, Reuters, or for this example NBC in the middle. So let's see what they have to say:
What's become a popular talking point among conservative Republicans opposed to an emerging immigration bill is incorrect. Here's what it would do.
www.nbcnews.com
"Migrants would not be able to just cross the border illegally under the new bill. It would end the practice of "catch and release," in which Border Patrol agents release migrants into the U.S. while they await immigration hearings.
Instead, migrants who tried to cross the border illegally would be detained immediately, with their asylum claims decided while they were in detention. People would be removed immediately within 15 days if they failed their asylum claim interviews.
The bill does provide exceptions from detention for unaccompanied minors and families even if they cross the border illegally between ports of entry. But those migrants would be placed under community supervision; what that looks like would be at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security."
The release part was a law, and people that crossed illegally would still have a right, it is both US and international law, to apply for asylum. You do not seem to understand that Trump proposes a fascist cure where he ignores both US and international law. That is not a solution. But those that crossed illegally would have only 15 days to make their case before they were sent back. This change makes for a huge disincentive to cross illegally. If an asylum seeker crosses legally they would have ninety days to prepare for their first asylum hearing. If tehy failed that they would be sent back across the border:
"If the deal were to become law, migrants who come to the U.S. border at official ports of entry would be diverted to a new "removal authority program" in which they would have 90 days to make their initial asylum interviews. Those migrants would not be released into the interior of the U.S., either; they would either be detained or kept under government supervision.
If they failed their initial asylum interviews, they would be removed immediately."
Both of those are far quicker than what we now do. A key part of this was hiring more judges for those hearings. By the way, passing either of those would not become an automatic pass. They merely screen out those with very poor cases.
Say…. whaaaaaat?
I suppose you don’t remember when Cuba did the same thing.
Wow! There is a huge failure in logic. "Cuba did this once so every country must be doing it". No, it does not work that way. The burden of proof is still upon you.