SINNERSROOM
Registered Users (C)
Amendment Eliminating Asylee Adjustment Cap Withdrawn in Senate
On September 23rd, Sam Senator Brown-back (R-KS) intended to offer an amend-ment to the Foreign Operations bill (S. 2812) that would have eliminated the nu-merical caps preventing asylees from be-coming permanent residents and assimi-lating into the United States. However, Senator Brownback did not ultimately offer the amendment as Senators Cham-bliss (R-GA), Cornyn (R-TX), Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), and Grassley (R-IA) threatened to intro-duce a substitute amendment containing a variety of troubling provisions. This possibility made it too risky for Senator Brownback to proceed. Drawing largely from a bill dubiously titled the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act (FILA-S.2443/H.R.4406), the Chambliss et. al. amendment would have eliminated grants of asylum when the persecution was on account of mixed motives, would have heightened the burden of proof for asylum applicants, and would have re-duced the window of time to .le asylum applications after arrival in the U.S. from 1 year to 90 days.
The Brownback amendment would have eliminated two caps, neither of which serve a legitimate public purpose: 1) the annual cap on the number of asylees (10,000) au-thorized to adjust their status to permanent resident, resulting in 20-year backlogs; and 2) the annual cap on the number of individ-uals (1,000) eligible for asylum on the basis of Coercive Population Control, resulting in 27-year backlogs.
On September 23rd, Sam Senator Brown-back (R-KS) intended to offer an amend-ment to the Foreign Operations bill (S. 2812) that would have eliminated the nu-merical caps preventing asylees from be-coming permanent residents and assimi-lating into the United States. However, Senator Brownback did not ultimately offer the amendment as Senators Cham-bliss (R-GA), Cornyn (R-TX), Hatch (R-UT), Kyl (R-AZ), Sessions (R-AL), and Grassley (R-IA) threatened to intro-duce a substitute amendment containing a variety of troubling provisions. This possibility made it too risky for Senator Brownback to proceed. Drawing largely from a bill dubiously titled the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act (FILA-S.2443/H.R.4406), the Chambliss et. al. amendment would have eliminated grants of asylum when the persecution was on account of mixed motives, would have heightened the burden of proof for asylum applicants, and would have re-duced the window of time to .le asylum applications after arrival in the U.S. from 1 year to 90 days.
The Brownback amendment would have eliminated two caps, neither of which serve a legitimate public purpose: 1) the annual cap on the number of asylees (10,000) au-thorized to adjust their status to permanent resident, resulting in 20-year backlogs; and 2) the annual cap on the number of individ-uals (1,000) eligible for asylum on the basis of Coercive Population Control, resulting in 27-year backlogs.
