Immigration Matters- Episode 8: Asylum Protection Transcript - Norris McLaughlin, P.A., Attorneys at Law

Episode 8: Asylum Protection

Transcript: Ray Lahoud, J. Alexander Short

Welcome to Norris Speaks, immigration Matters, a limited podcast series where we delve into the economic, employment, and cultural realities of immigration. I’m your host, Ray Lahoud, member and chair of the Immigration Law Group at Norris McLaughlin. In this episode, I am joined by my colleague, Alex Short, to talk about Asylum protection in the United States. What it is, what it should be, what it was, and where it seems to be heading right now with the new, uh, Republican majority, in Congress. So, welcome Alex to today’s podcast, and thank you for joining me today to talk to our listeners.

Thank you for having me, Ray. I appreciate it.

It’s always good having you here, Alex, you are, a man of, great intelligence and legal acumen, and having your words here is important to our listeners and all. And, you know, asylum is something that we both deal with all the time.

Every day.

Every day. I mean, daily I am meeting with. Potential clients or people who have come to the United States who have a fear of returning back to their home country. And those fears are wide-ranging. I mean, there’s people who come in who have no real claim at all. They don’t want to go back to their country because the economy is bad. Well, you know, the economy isn’t the best everywhere in the United States government doesn’t necessarily recognize as a former protection, you know, economy. As the underlying reason that bad economy is a, as a fear, a legitimate fear for asylum protection. Asylum itself is an old law. It’s an ancient law that permits individuals to seek protection of another government when they have been persecuted in the past by their own government or fair persecution if they were to come back or be sent back to their home country. The United States specifically has written within its immigration law, the Immigration Nationality Act provisions that provide for asylum protection of the United States government to refugees who have been persecuted on, or a fear of persecution. By their country of nationality or country of citizenship. But we recognize or we provide protection on protected grounds themselves, some very specific protected grounds. And I know I spoke about, you know, a bad economy in a country. A lot of people are coming here now and they’re claiming a fear of going back because they can’t get a job in their home country. That’s not a protected ground in the United States. The protected grounds are specifically enumerated as, uh, protection because of persecution based on race, religion, one’s nationality, one’s political opinion, and the broader one, which has created a lot of debate and, uh, litigation in immigration courts and federal courts across the country, membership in what’s called a particular social group with asylum protection normally. So, what happens if somebody comes into the United States they seek asylum based on one of those protected grounds. They have to file an application within a year, I believe.

Within a year. For most applications.

If they don’t file within a year, they waive. Unless there’s exceptional circumstance or a reason why that could be supported by documents, they essentially waive their ability to apply for that asylum protection. Asylum protection, I always say is we have to prove by a 10% chance that one is gonna be persecuted or has been persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. And after that one year, there are other available relief, you know, forms of relief called one called withholding of removal. One called can convention against Torture. But as we move forward to those two other forms of relief. The burden of proof is significantly higher and it’s even the benefits of being granted withholding a removal or convention against torture long-term aren’t the same as what you would get if you applied for and were granted asylum. For example, with asylum protection, if you’re granted it after one year of having asylum, you could apply for lawful permanent residence. Then five years after that, you could apply to become a United States citizen. Asylum is applied for affirmatively. So, somebody comes into the United States, they tell the immigration officer at the border, I’m afraid to go back to my own country. This is why they go before US Citizenship in Immigration services. If somebody’s in immigration court, they’re applying what’s called defensively before the Immigration Court. And when they’re before that immigration court, they have to prove to the court or they have to prove to U S C I S, US Citizen Immigration Services that they were either persecuted in the past or have a fear of persecution with respect to their home country based on that race, the religion, nationality, political opinion, membership in a particular social group. And what I see a lot of is, you know, it’s, you know, religion is one, nationality is one political opinion. I’m seeing a lot of political opinion coming here from claims coming here from Venezuela,  Nicaragua.

Absolutely.

Cuba. where, you know, individuals have protested are on certain government lists that has caused them issues in terms of maybe even getting employment or just living the free life in their home country. But again, you know, the US hasn’t recognized a bad economy as a protected group that’s there. People would be coming here from, from all over the place. With social group though, it’s, that’s a broader concept there. And I also see a lot as you do too, see a lot of that. And one that really stings me is, and just stands out to me are victims of domestic violence.

Certainly.

Individuals, men, women who’ve been in relationships in their home country and were severely abused, raped, verbally attacked, assaulted at every level by their significant other, their spouse, uh, boyfriend, girlfriend, father, or mother of their child, and they flee from that because when they go to the police departments in their home country, there’s no police protection. The cops are. But you can follow your report, which you’ll need when you apply for asylum copies of that as evidence. But they, there’s no follow-up. There isn’t a PFA process protection from abuse order process. There isn’t, uh, there’s simply no, follow-up. Sometimes the spouse or the significant other could just pay off the police officer. So that person who’s coming to the United States to seek protection from the United States under the asylum doctrine is coming here because they’re just stuck in their home country. And they’re continuously facing this abuse and persecution by, you know, spouses or, you know, significant others or, even other,  relatives.

And they feel like they just can’t get out of it because they can’t move to another part of the country because they’ll be found.

Mm-hmm.

A lot of these countries are smaller and, you know, how could they move to another part? They’re not, they’re still not gonna get the protection they need, and the only way out is to get out of the country and a lot of ’em end up here at the US border.

You know, coming into the United States and asking for that as asylum protection at the border, landing here with a visitor visa because of another. Set of cases are, you know, like in terms of religion, uh, Coptic Christians in Egypt have gone through a lot. We do a lot of ethnic Roma cases.

Oh, absolutely.

There’s the cases there from certain Eastern European countries who suffer discrimination. But persecution is more than just discrimination. It’s, you know, facing continuous threats, abuse, you know, being victimized. So there’s a politics are all over the place with asylum and rightfully so in a way, because we’ve got, what, four or 5 million people who’ve crossed the board in the last two or three years. I’m gonna just throw out a random estimate here that probably 60% of them do not have a legitimate fear of returning back to their country that’s recognized by the US government, but they’re just being permitted to enter the United States secure work authorization documents, you know, and try to go through some kind of an asylum process.

And there’s probably like 30 to 40% that have very legitimate. Claims to protection very, you know, have suffered severe persecution in their home country, are terrified subjectively and objective evidence shows, um, are terrified of returning to their home country. And I always say is that 60% that it’s just walking across the border with no legitimate fear. Is creating a lot of intention or debate, um, particularly now with the new, uh, slim majority in the United States of Representatives by the Republicans there, and it’s hurting that 30 to 40% that have those legitimate claims.

It sure is.

And you know, we were talking recently, here’s these, those Border Safety and Security Act 2023 is something that just come up recently by the House Republicans. Correct?

Actually, it’s interesting. So like you mentioned the. Just recently changed from a Democratic majority to a Republican majority, albeit a very slim one. But,  when,  that happens in either direction, you tend to see a lot of bills being proposed that reflect the state. Of that political party. So one of these bills, which directly affects, uh, asylum applicants that was recently proposed is this HR 29. It’s called the Border Safety and Security Act of 2023. Now, keep in mind, this is not a law yet. Um, it is being proposed as a law. Um, it still has to be voted on, and even if it were to pass the House of Representatives, it would still have to be sent to the Senate where it would have to pass. Then of course go to the president’s desk to be signed into law. So a lot of hurdles still exist. But  I was reading this law Ray, and I think it’s an interesting reflection of the political, or I should say the politicized nature of Southern border immigration policy specifically silent policy. If you read through this law.

Is it one page, two pages long?

It’s one page. I have, I don’t know if the mic picks it up, but that’s the page right there.

One page long.

It is a single page and what it does, it kind of copies the Title 42 policy, which we won’t get into too much here, but essentially, During the Covid-19 pandemic, there was obvious health concerns about letting people into the country.

So, they were able to restrict entry at the southern border at all of our borders for that matter and restrict the amount of people who are able to enter the country. And so this law is using the same mentality, which was a temporary. Solution for the pandemic.

But Title 42 is still’s ongoing right now.

I’m, that’s the thing is that they passed the law and then for a temporary reason yet, but it persists even after that. The thing that justified it disappears or, or is, is more under control.

That’s gained a lot of attention politically and nationwide. Heard people saying, oh, title 42 goes away. You’re gonna have a huge influx of people coming.

Right.

Based on this,

So essentially this, this new Border Safety and Security Act of 2023, you can tell from, the title they’re, they’re seeking to control the border. So if you read through this law, the first thing it allows Congress to do is to suspend the entry of undocumented people at the southern border or at any border for that matter, to achieve operational.

Over the border, so you might wonder what the heck is. Operational control. Control is a good thing too, though, in a way. Control is a Yeah, of course. And, and the. The representative whose name is Chip Roy of the 21st District of Texas.

Good old chip.

Yes. I think this is my first introduction to Congressman Roy, but, um, well, we’re both pages down in DC.

We, yes, we.

were younger.

True there. So, we know these members.

And yeah, the faces changed sometimes, but I do feel sometimes a bit of a connection to that chamber. But the goal here is to prevent all unlawful entry to the us and this is, and they focus on terrorist. Unlawful individuals, people involved in drug trade, that kind of thing.

Well, we don’t want terrorists and drug people on drug trade.

of course not.

So, I mean, I think we can agree that’s, probably a good part. That is, and that’s a noble cause.

And the idea is that the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can make a determination whether there’s operational control or not. Right. And so the, the issue or the concern among a lot of Democrats in the house and elsewhere Is that this essentially gives, uh, an agent of the White House, you know, an individual selected by the president, a political agent, a political, uh, secretary, you know, an appointee to make a determination, you know, is the southern border controlled? And then if not, Suspend the entry of all undocumented individuals.

What do you mean by suspend the entry though?

Mean this is a question. You know, like I said, this is a one-page very kind of cut and dry, uh, good old chip Roy document. People are concerned that that apply to asylum applicants too.

Oh.

And the interesting thing, and this is seems to be a trend recently, uh, among, at least the,  republican party. That I’ve seen is that it empowers states to sue the Department of Homeland Security for failing to do that. And so, um, in a situation as exists today, Where you have an appointee for the Department of Homeland Security, who’s

Mayor Ork.

Democratic, or appointed from a Democrat.

Yeah.

And, at the kind of direction of President Biden, they would now be subject to lawsuits from Attorney General in various states. In this case it would likely be southern states. As we’ve seen lately, they tend to, what are the, but these lawsuits here? Mm-hmm. I mean, so, you know, we sue the DHS all the time as part of our practice when they’re not doing certain things Sure. That they should be doing for clients, approving applications and all. I mean, so you know, my is sued every day by Texas, Louisiana. Arizona, you know, carry Lakes down there in Arizona, running for governor, just lost by they sue all the time. So just think about this here is, what is a lawsuit gonna do when you have 5 million people crossing the border?

That’s a great question because the provision in the law here just affords the right to bring an action against the Secretary of Homeland Security in district court for a state that’s negatively impacted by individuals entering from the southern border. So, you have a. Southern states, especially because of their geographical proximity to the border, complaining that they are being affected at a greater rate than, say, Vermont or, or Maine, who sees less individuals with undocumented status coming from the southern border. And the question that I have that I don’t think is answered quite clearly in this bill is.

well written. One page bill.

Is what, what exactly the lawsuits  are supposed to? I think the idea, or at least the, a lot of discussion about this bill is that this is a bill to, afford additional power to the Department of Homeland Security, not because they want Mayor Orcas to, exercise that power, but in anticipation of,  a Republican White House so that they can shut down this border with basically greater power.

whenever they want.

Than they have now.

And the issue, I think that that is relevant to this discussion. What if that affected asylum applicants we’re talking about, uh, centuries. I mean, even more than century thousands of years old. I mean, asylum itself is a, it’s a Greek word. Um, you can even kind of hear the Greek in it. Uh, this is something that goes back as far as democracy individuals can be protected. Um, by other countries when their country fails to protect them.

It’s recognized by the United Nations. There’s a United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 48.

Mm-hmm.

The 1951 Convention by the, on the related to the status of refugees, the 67 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. So this has been long part of international law and is, in our law by, the INA.

It is, and I think that the, it’s interesting because the United States. is on a global scale, we are one of the safest, one of the most protected, uh, countries in the world. And a lot of people born and raised here, like myself, we don’t even think about the things that happen.

it’s bad in Nicaragua or what’s going on in Venezuela. Cause it, it’s so foreign to our experience that it’s hard to even understand it. But when you’re in my position or your position.

Mm-hmm.

And you see, and you hear these stories every day about the reality that goes on

The grim reality.

In 2023, stuff that you would assume this is centuries old and then has no applicability to modern times. But unfortunately, a lot of people still need, that kind of protection, whether it’s in the United States or other countries. So I think that the politicized nature of the southern border is, Impacting, uh, the right , of individuals to seek the protection they need. And so I guess my concern with this bill is that in the wrong hands,  it could be used to turn away people who are desperate,  who need protection. Like you were talking about domestic violence cases, which are very prevalent. Unfortunately, and, and a reality of immigration practice is that if we turn them away, who’s gonna take them?

You’re just going back to their home country and face the same persecution that they were facing, or even worse, get more persecution because they attempted to leave their home country to seek protection in the United States. In the United States here, there’s two points, I think , in here too, that in terms of. Detaining asylum seekers and placing them in a country where they’ve entered. So in essence, the bill would prohibit undocumented individuals, people without papers from, you know, coming to the border and asking CBP for asylum protection and asylum review at the very basic level it back.

Yeah. Yeah.

And then prevents them. And two, taking it a step further, if say they were to enter the country, they would have to be, Correct me if I’m wrong here, detained while they’re going through asylum proceedings or, well, it, please correct me if I’m wrong.

No, it’s a little bit unclear and I think that the proponents of this bill are not quite coming after asylum applicants. I think they even recognize that, that that’s a touchy subject. But the concern is that these one-page bills that afford

Good old chip,

kind of, yes. Representative Roy, um, spent maybe not as much time writing the bill as he should have, but

Well, they don’t really erect the bills anyways on the end.

Yeah, that’s fair. but the, when, when it’s not, when bills are written in this ambiguous language, you don’t know what the next administration’s gonna do with it. And I think that what this plays into that’s very relevant to any discussion on. Is that there’s a real problem with the way the US government handles these cases. I mean, the backlog, I think right now for asylum cases, it’s like a million cases.

Sitting in an immigration court. right now taking 10 years, to go through.

I have hearings scheduled in mid-2025.

Yeah.

And, and they’re likely to be postponed.

Even further.

At some point before we get there. So, uh, you’ve been practicing immigration law more than I. Do you see any reality, where, where the US government gets this situation under control?

I look at it, you know, Alex, a good question. I think my response, is that you know, our elected leaders. like having problems and don’t like getting rid of problems because it can use those problems to keep getting reelected.

Yeah.

So, what our government needs and what immigration needs is a complete overhaul of the Immigration Act. I mean, the INA, the Immigration Nationality Act was written in, it was in 1958, I believe, by a congressman, a girl congressman named Tad Walters. It’s called the Walters-McCarran Act.

Yep.

 And it, and it was written in a way to restrict immigrants from coming into the country and, really hasn’t been changed since then other than to either make it more difficult by both Democratic and Republican administrations and majorities, I mean, under the Clinton administration. There was two bills that were passed, the ARRERA and the A E D P A, which made immigration law much tougher on people. And that was during the Clinton administration.

Sure.

That happened. So it, you know, immigration has kind of moved from party to party. It’s a problem that just keeps happening that is continuing. And it’s a problem that they, to me, not a member of Congress, thankfully I’m not the president, thankfully, and never would want to be. Maybe, hopefully here. Alex could one day help solve this problem here. But we need, comprehensive. Immigration reform, we need a complete revamp of the immigration system that not only, um, you know, provides for, you know, employment visas and the like, but also provides for more defined protections, more defined protections for people who are seeking protection from persecution, but from their home country. I mean, the reality of the world is that not every country is like the United States, and there are countries that are,  have governments that are dictators, you know, communist nature.

mm-hmm.

And, really repress their people, and people who have stood up against them are being personally committed because of that. I mean, United States is not Nicaragua, Nicaragua is not the United States, Venezuela is a disaster right now.  It’s a great country, a beautiful country that was, you know, because of its own internal politics has really succumbed the economically, politically, and the people are suffering , in these countries. So, I. Do not see any Congress in the near future doing what has to be done, actually step up and propose more than a one page bill further restricting access to protections or further restricting or limiting our immigration processes here, like good old chip Roy there did. Um, because we need, we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need a revamp of the entire immigration system that will clear the backlogs, that recognizes that we have a lot of people in this country without status right now. I know back in when Hillary Clinton was running for office, she put the number at 11 million. That number’s been in the same since I would put that number at probably 40 million people here in the United States without the last two years. The last two years we’ve got another 5 million people in the country that are sitting here. So, there’s a lot of people in the country that. That are undocumented and something has to be done. It just can’t continue like this. It just, can’t continue the way it is. I mean, these are people that, you know, have, , us citizen kids are paying taxes through I-10 numbers, you know, have bought houses, have businesses. But there’s two things. I mean, there’s also some people who I could say within this comprehensive immigration reform, there’s gonna be people that are gonna, have to be deported. I mean, we’ve got a lot of people who, you know, who,  are members of gangs. Who’ve,  multiple DUIs, drug convictions, drug offenses, domestic violence offenses here in the United States. So there are people, there’re working people in, in any kind of comprehensive immigration reform that to protect those that have been here for, uh, you know, some time who,  have done well here in the United States to protect them. Who have the kids here, I mean, Some people are going to have to be deported as well. But, and that’s, the reality of today, we have a serious issue and it’s,  only becoming bigger and bigger every day when another 10,000 people come across every day. I mean, I have serious issues with what’s happening at the border. I just have very. Very serious issues there because we have, honestly, I mean, there’s, no real way to vet a lot of these individuals. I, they’re, coming across, they have documents, support asylum claims in the lake. Like I was saying earlier, 60% of ’em don’t have valid claims, 40%. Have, you know, good, strong claims and those 40% are being hurt by the 60% that don’t have the claims. But there’s a serious problem at the border because there are a lot of people coming across that we are unable to properly vet, like Syria does not have an FBI. I’m, Lebanese Lebanon does not have a background check system. I mean, a lot of, some of these people can come to the border and just say they’re from a country when they’re not really from that country. So, so there, there are serious issues, at the border. There are serious. When it comes to employers employing undocumented people, that’s, I believe the root cause of a lot of it is that.

Mm-hmm.

People are coming here too. And for protection, you know? So it’s protection and then there’s the work element of it. So, and employers are employing them. And you just kind of go back to 1986 when Ronald Reagan passed the Embassy protection there. And you know, Democrats will argue, Republicans will argue that made California a blue state. You know, people will say that immigration reform, you know, will change the demographics of politics forever. But in 80

certainly, in 86, you know, Ronald and Reagan Rec, every Republican recognized that you know, one of the. Issues of this, this growth in unlawful entries and over visa overstays in the United States was that they were getting jobs by employers.

So, what is Ronald Reagan doing? He works at a compromise. He says, let’s create the I nine form and e-Verify Eve as a voluntary program where an employer could register voluntarily, not required. To confirm if somebody’s able to work legally in, the United States. Um, you know, and he said, let’s strengthen our borders. Let’s create, you know, a visa reform so that we’re able to get to those people who are overstaying their visas or their lawful entries in the United States. But in exchange, the goal there was. You know, the people that were already in the United States were gonna be afforded amnesty.

Yeah.

But they did one before the other. I mean, what should come first is, I mean, I would say a precondition or, a prerequisite or, uh, what we used to call it in law school. I, uh, forget what it was such at the pre-though, but.

law school was a long time ago,

I think conditioned precedent, let’s say condi.

Oh, there you go. Okay.

Condition precedent of providing relief to those who are in the country now without documentation is ensuring border security, you know, Changing the visa system that makes sure, you know, ensures that people, you know, stay here as long as they have to and not more provides for more employment-based visas for people who are just coming here to work.

And, that’s okay. They come here, they can work, they can pay some taxes, they can go back and forth and like, cause we need workers too. And also affords the asylum protections, the legitimate asylum protections for people who are having. Issues in their,  in their home country. So that was a very long answer to your question there. But, honestly, I think that,  our leaders unfortunately like to have ongoing problems because that is what gets them reelected. They. That’s what gets them real up.

It’s an unfortunate reality. I do have to, we have to give, representative Roy A little bit of credit. You know,

his one-page.

he at least drafted a page, right?

And one page that’s more pages than a lot of congressmen draft, uh, on immigration. So I,

but his one page doesn’t make sense.

No, no, that, that, yeah, we have to, I guess we have to take that credit right back. I think it is a complicated problem. We, we have border issues, we have employment issues, we have the people who are here, we have the workers who, who want to be here. They want to contribute. We have the educated workers that, we talked on a different podcast recently about H-1B’s, and I think. It is a complicated problem and the solutions have to be complicated. Yeah.

right. We, we can’t write a one page bill and expect immigration to be solved. Right. We have to have a national discourse. We have to talk honestly, you know, and have this conversation where we acknowledge some things are already done. You know,  the toothpaste is out of tub. We have

good analogy there.

And 10, 20, 30, 40, we have however many million people in the country who are here. Uh, we can’t effectively deport all of them. We can try to, to do our best at the, southern border to control. I think that’s what Representative Roy is trying to do, and, , we have to really, uh, spend some time on this. I, I don’t think it’s gonna be an easy solution, and unfortunately, I think politicians lately, uh, are very attracted to, simple. Headline kind of solutions to complicated problems. And that’s a, that’s a problem in and of itself because they’re not working for the American people then, I mean, I think, and that’s not a true, you know, true democracy. If we can get the current administration to sit down with the House Republicans and the Senate Democrats and actually put together a legitimate, comprehensive, you know, immigration reform bill. I mean, it’s not gonna happen overnight. There’s it. Takes a long time, but  it’s not gonna happen because we just have so much political divide in this country, unfortunately. So you’ve got one side that says, oh, immigration reform is trying to change the demographics of our country. And if you’ve got the other side that’s saying immigration is, you know, which I intend to agree with there. On the, uh, side I’m about to go into here, is that immigration is necessary in part  for our country, lawful immigration is. Uh, you know, and even as a country,  we’re a,  beacon of,  light, of hope, we are, we’ve,  given, we’ve protected people who’ve been persecuted. Legitimately persecuted by other countries and dictators in their home countries. For, you know, since the start of our country.

 I mean,

yeah,

Our founders came to the United States because of religious persecution. I mean if you really think about it.

Yes.

You know, so we’ve been doing it , since day one. I mean, that’s what is the, is, the form of it. So, we have to recognize that there are people that have to have access to the ability. To seek, at least seek consideration by our government, for protection because, you know, they could apply for refugee status outside of the country so somebody can walk into an embassy or go through a process to file for refugee status. That’s a process that takes 10 or 15 years to happen. I mean, look what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and doesn’t until we, we drew from Afghanistan, had to fly people over here and hold them in military basis until we get their processes done. So, To a lot of these people, they say, all right, I can try to apply for this refugee program through, has to go through United Nations and all, but you’re talking 10 years.

Right.

I mean, you’ll be dead by then if you’re in a country that’s attacking you because of your politics or your religion, your nationality, your ethnic background, religion problem, or if your spouse is beating you every day and  aping you every day. I mean can you spend 10 more years of that? Or when is it, you know, you’ve just had enough. So that’s why they make that, that move towards, um, you know, coming to the border and seeking a asylum protection, you know, in the United States rather than going to that refugee process. So another way of possibly solving, guess making the refugee process from outside the United States somewhat less complex.

Right, because like you said, these people are, are dealing with problems that could end their life tomorrow. Right? This is as urgent as anything I think I would’ve ever dealt with in my life and probably more. Their situations are untenable. Yeah, they’re going to go somewhere. And these are not countless people, but millions of people.

Absolutely.

And I think that, that if we, we, and we have to also recognize this is a good problem to have the this is the problem of the greatest country on earth.

Mm-hmm.

This is, everybody wants to be a part of America because it’s so great. So I think that when we keep that in mind, we’re just gonna, we just have to have this discussion and figure out some solutions. I don’t think there’s any one solution that’s gonna fix it all at once, but piecemeal solutions. Through our representatives  is all we can do. So I think that well piecemeal is a problem, though. That’s a huge issue that we have here, is that we,  have me, I mean, every time a new president is elected, they’re, you know, signing executive because Congress has an act.

They’re, signing executive orders, you know, that are lasting four years or they’re eight years in office. Kind of like piecemeal solutions for serious long-term problems. Like, look at daca, applicants’ people on deferred action. I mean, they’re sitting. Kind of in limbo, not knowing if they’re gonna be able to keep an employment authorization document or be able to stay in the United States legally, you know, after they’ve given all their information to the US government because of the Obama administration. So I think piecemeal is a problem. I think comprehensive is necessary.

Yeah.

Here.

I think that’s a good point, uh, because in reality  what we’re looking at, And if you look at, and I welcome our listeners , to look up immigration law history, which is, sounds probably pretty boring, but it’s more interesting.

It’s really interesting by the way.

It, you’ll find that a lot, like, first of all, it’s not as old as you think. Um, it goes back maybe 150 years. And, you see this, this kind of piecemeal approach that we’ve taken, which a lot of times, especially in the earlier. It’s very exclusionary. This is targeted laws to keep certain people out.

Because the Walters McCarran Act was yeah, incredibly new.

And so , and when you kind of view it in its totality and you see that a lot of times Congress will react to, to exclude people a lot faster than to include, exclude people. Uh, that that has resulted cumulatively over 150 years.

That’s interesting there.

Patchwork mess.

Yeah.

That we have now. So, welcome Representative Roy and, and any,

it’s more than one page Right.

Any other representatives listening to maybe sit down, and think about this a little bit and come up with human beings Yeah. That’s their job, right?

Yeah. Well, It is their job. They don’t do their job very well, unfortunately. Um, but you know, so I think in the end here, it’s more than one page that was written by his honor. The, you know, congressman,

the Honorable representative Roy?

Yes. Chip. Chip Roy here.  I mean, and this is a Republican and Democrat.

And if he’s, if he listens, I welcome him to come in, have a conversation,

give us a call.

conversation.

We’ll talk to you about it.

We’ll host an episode and talk about this in more detail. I think conversation is the starting point, uh, to any of these solutions.

Immigration reform, and asylum protection is more than one page. It’s a complex, uh, Process.  It’s a complex solution that we need to change. A very convoluted, which is the word we used recently.

Yes.

Convoluted in backwards immigration system that hasn’t really been looked at extensively. In decades.

It’s more than one-page chip. It really is. It’s more than one page. And with that, this has been Norris Speaks Immigration Matters. I want to thank our guest, Alex Short,  for coming today to talking about of, Congressman Roys builder there talking about Asylum protection, and talking about the immigration system, as a whole, Norris Speaks, immigration matters a limited podcast series where we delve into the economic, employment, and cultural realities of immigration. Again, I thank my guest, a short and you the listener, for being a part of this conversation. Be sure to stay on the lookout for a brand-new episode. If you’d like to learn more about immigration law, please visit our website at www.nationalimmigrationlawyers.com, and I would urge you to subscribe to our blog to stay up to date on today’s immigration matters. Thank You.