Mediaboss Marketing

Assuming that the rule of law and intellectual integrity matters to a court with an originalist supermajority, the choice before the court is a clear one: It must weigh a modern libertarian preference for gun rights against the strong historical evidence allowing robust gun regulation, including may-issue permit schemes premised on specified threats like New York has had in place for a century. As the recent horrific events on the New York City subway underscore, guns have no place on public transportation or any other place where a large number of people gather. The Supreme Court would do well to act with some measure of judicial humility on this issue, respect history, not invent it, and reaffirm that the people, not unelected judges make the laws in our system.

More:
Guns, guns everywhere: Last weeks subway shooting was horrifying. If the Supreme Court creates a national right to carry, the future will be worse. -...

At the beginning of his short book Why Not Socialism?, G.A. Cohen asks the reader to think about a group of friends going on a camping trip together. He doesnt describe anything out of the ordinary. The friends find a site and set up a tent. Some of them fish, some of them cook, they all go on hikes, and so on.

What Cohen wants the reader to notice is that the way this trip is run looks a lot like how socialists think society should be run. The pots and pans and fishing poles and soccer balls, for example, are treated as collective property even if they belong to individual campers. When the fish are caught and cooked, everyone gets to partake equally of the result of the collective effort, free of charge. Cohens hypothetical campers act this way not because of anything especially noble about them, but because this is how any group of friends would act on a camping trip.

To make the point more sharply, he invites us to imagine a far less normal camping trip one thats run according to the principles of a capitalist market economy. One of the campers (Sylvia) discovers an apple tree. When she comes back to tell the others, theyre excited that theyll all be able to enjoy apple sauces, apple pie, and apple strudel. Certainly they can, Sylvia confirms provided, of course . . . that you reduce my labor burden, and/or provide me with more room in the tent, and/or with more bacon at breakfast.

Another camper, Harry, is very good at fishing, and so in exchange for his services he demands that he be allowed to dine exclusively on perch instead of the mixture of perch and catfish everyone else is eating. Another, Morgan, lays claim to a pond with especially good fish because he claims that his grandfather dug and stocked it with those fish on another camping trip decades ago.

No normal person, Cohen notes, would tolerate such behavior. They would insist on what he calls a socialist way of life. Why, then, shouldnt we want to organize an entire economy around the same principles?

Many defenders of capitalism would insist that, however obnoxious or unacceptable it would be to treat your friends this way, people still have a right to assert private property claims including claims to private property in the means of production and that it would be unacceptably authoritarian for a future socialist society to abridge such rights. Cohen doesnt spend any time in Why Not Socialism? on this defense, perhaps because he addresses it at length in two of his other books, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality and History, Labour, and Freedom.

Instead, he devotes the later chapters of Why Not Socialism? to objections that even some progressives might have about whether socialist principles can scale up from a camping trip to an entire economy. Is whats possible among a small group of friends really possible for a whole society? What about economic calculation problems? What about human nature?

Cohen takes these challenges seriously, but cautions against premature defeatism. He admits that its possible that the closest well get to the fully marketless economic planning modeled by the camping trip on a society-wide scale is some sort of market socialism although he thinks its premature to rule out the possibility of going further than that.

Either way, Cohens view is that the ideal is one worth striving for. Even if we dont get all the way there, a society that more closely approximates the way of life found on the camping trip would be better than one further from it.

Why Not Socialism? was published in 2009, the year Cohen died. Five years later, libertarian philosopher Jason Brennan came out with a critique entitled Why Not Capitalism?

In it Brennan argues that instead of looking at the flaws of actually existing socialism and those of actually existing capitalism, Cohen was weighing a socialist ideal against the warts-and-all version of capitalism. Such a lopsided comparison, he thinks, proves nothing.

Brennan illustrates the point by discussing the animated Disney show Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (not to be confused with the older variety show The Mickey Mouse Club). In a parody of Cohens camping trip chapter, Brennan describes the show as it actually is everyone seems to be friends with everyone else and there doesnt seem to be any poverty or serious social distress, but it looks like a regular market economy. Minnie Mouse owns a factory and store for hair bows called the Bowtique, Clarabelle Cow is a reasonably successful entrepreneur (she owns both a sundries store called the Moo Mart and a Moo Muffin factory), and Donald Duck and Willie the Giant both own their own farms.

Brennan then asks the reader to imagine a hypothetical version of the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village where some of the villagers started doing what Stalinist regimes did in the name of socialism. Donald forcibly collectivizes all farmland like Stalin did in 1929, Clarabelle Cow starts a secret police force, and so on. Obviously, that would be horrible!

If you dont think this hypothetical proves anything about capitalism and socialism, Brennan writes, you shouldnt think Cohens camping trip argument does either. In both cases, the problem is that like isnt being compared to like. And Brennan further argues that, even as an ideal, capitalism is better than socialism because in a laissez-faire capitalist world, anyone who wanted to secede and form a commune with their own preferred rules could do so.

There are three problems with Brennans argument. First, he is not comparing like to like in his attempt to satirize Cohen. After all, Cohen isnt describing some idealized fantasy of a camping trip; hes describing the kind of camping trip that untold numbers of people go on every year. They all work the way Cohen describes. The Mickey Mouse Clubhouse Village is a trippy sci-fi fantasy of animals interacting in a half-imagined society, one where its unclear whether a state exists or what sorts of labor laws or regulations it potentially enforces. To compare like to like, Brennan would have had to find a mundane experience that many readers have had, or at least are very familiar with, where a capitalist way of life would be obviously preferable.

Second, Cohen isnt contrasting the small-scale implementation of socialist ideals with the worst things that have been done in the name of capitalism. Sylvias insistence on her property rights stops the other campers from getting apple strudel she isnt denying any of them life-saving medications because they cant afford to pay. No one hires other campers to stack firewood for them and then hires Pinkertons to beat or kill the firewood stackers when they go on strike. Cohen doesnt come up with a camping trip version of the British East India company or the enclosures that drove peasants off their land and made them desperate enough to take jobs in early factories or Adolf Hitlers declaration of emergency powers to protect Germany from the threat of left-wing revolution.

Instead, all of Cohens examples are examples of people asserting exactly the kinds of economic rights that defenders of capitalism are eager to endorse the kind that everyone would have in Brennans libertarian ideal of capitalism! Morgans grandfather passed on his property to his descendants, Sylvia is asserting her property rights in the means of apple strudel production as the initial discoverer of a piece of unowned property, and the other two are simply trying to bargain for the best deal they can get in a free market.

If Brennan wanted to seriously engage with Cohens argument, hed have to explain why, if its not okay to act this way on a camping trip, it wouldnt even be desirable to try to figure out a different way to organize a society.

Cohen thinks that whats wrong with introducing a capitalist way of life into a camping trip and with it serving as the guiding principle for an economy is that capitalism fails to live up to an ideal that its defenders often tout: equality of opportunity. In each case, some people are doing worse than others due to factors outside their control not having seen the apple tree first, not having a grandfather who bequeathed the particularly good fishing pond, or just not being lucky enough to have been born with the same skills as their friends.

Similarly, Cohen thinks, no one deserves a worse life just because they didnt grow up in a rich family or they werent born with the skills that allow some to climb up the social ladder. He contrasts bourgeois equality of opportunity, meaning that there are no formal impediments to anyone succeeding (for example, racial discrimination) and even left-liberal equality of opportunity, which attempts to go beyond bourgeois equality of opportunity with programs like Head Start that compensate for certain social disadvantages, with socialist equality of opportunity the principle that no one should have a worse life due to factors outside of their control.

If different people, for example, want to make different decisions about how many hours to work and how much leisure to enjoy, its not unjust to reward more industrious choices with greater consumption. But no one should have a worse life because of who their parents were or how well they do on tests. Cohen supplements this with a socialist principle of community: if you recognize other people as part of your community, youll try to make sure they dont suffer too much even from bad choices they make of their own free will.

Id argue Cohens list of principles is somewhat incomplete. Historically, socialists have, for very good reasons, emphasized equality of power (although, to be fair, Cohen writes eloquently elsewhere about the unfreedom that workers suffer under capitalism).

I also wish hed read about other models of what socialism could look like. As an achievable halfway house between capitalism and completely marketless, moneyless camping-trip-style socialism, Cohen discusses John Roemers scheme under which every citizen would be awarded equal stock ownership, but Cohen doesnt seem to be aware of, for example, the slightly more radical conception of market socialism advanced by David Schweickart. I wish he had, because in implementing democratic control at the workplace, Schweickarts conception comes closer to Cohens ideal while still seeming realistic in the short term.

Despite these minor defects, Why Not Socialism? is an excellent introduction to socialist ideals. The form of presentation is intuitive and even deceptively simple, while the underlying arguments are careful and sophisticated. You can finish it in an hour, and Cohens points will linger in your head for years. Read it.

Read the original:
GA Cohen Showed Why We Should All Be Socialists - Jacobin magazine

Is Brave New World or 1984 more relevant?

Surprisingly many conversations Ive had in the past half a year half a year, not 1.5 months! have to do with the Orwell vs. Huxley dichotomy.

Thinking about this dichotomy. And taking into account casual libertarian pro-individual mindset begins to make more and more sense every day.

The side that would win has to be the side that makes it more cost-effective to a) keep the people working, and b) keep the people from comparing.

Seriously, thats it. Whether its UBI or open dictatorship is merely a question of economy-based competition of various mindsets and ideologies. And the stronger one is very likely to win.

In other words, if you have preferences, instead of arguing from moral and persuasion grounds, just watch closely and help your preferred side show its strength.

My side is the one that supports individuals in the live and live fashion, for at least as long as their freedom does not infringe on others freedoms.

I hope my side will emerge victorious. Myself, I am doing and will do what I can. But Im also well aware my side might lose, in which case, assuming humankind and my bloodline continues, my kids and all of us left would have to learn to live under a different paradigm.

In conclusion, that this has happened many times before. And the thought that today is not quite exceptional gives me hope and optimism. Lastly, sharing just in case this thought may boost your morale too.

What is the difference between Brave New World and 1984?

The main difference between Brave New World and 1984 isthe way the citizens are controlled, furthermore, in 1984 they are controlled by the government through fear, while in Brave New World the government controls them with pleasure.

Read more here:
Is Brave New World or 1984 more relevant? - Rebellion Research

Last year, after months of in-fighting among Democrats, opposition from Republicans, and technical obstacles, President Joe Bidens Build Back Better Act died in Congress. The $1.9 trillion spending bill contained a few immigration provisions watered down from Bidens original immigration reform proposal known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.

As the name suggests, the U.S. Citizenship Act would have established pathways to citizenship for the countrys 11 million undocumented residents, including those with special status designations such as DREAMers those brought here unlawfully as children and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders. But lawmakers opted to try passing smaller bills, including severely watered down measures where citizenship provisions were left out altogether. Some trimmed-down bills are still floating around Congress a year later, highlighting the possibility of citizenship for millions of undocumented residents who live and work here remains out of reach.

Donate now

We provide indispensable news and information for and about New Yorks immigrant community. Your support will enable that work to continue.

The U.S. Citizenship Act proposed sweeping immigration reforms, such as expanding legal work access for immigrants and dependents potentially affecting 13.6 million green card holders in the U.S. as well as providing a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents. According to the Center for American Progress, the U.S.s undocumented workforce alone contributes an estimated $79.7 billion in federal taxes, in addition to $41 billion in state and local taxes.

But the U.S. Citizenship Act was ultimately abandoned by lawmakers in favor of smaller separate bills, given the unlikelihood that such sweeping reforms would gain enough support from Republicans and conservative Democrats to pass the Senate. Some smaller measures have stalled in Congress while others have perished as part of the broader Build Back Better bill.

The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, as it was officially known, featured a bevy of immigration reform measures that can largely be divided into three components: providing work-related reforms for both immigrants with legal statuses and undocumented immigrants; modernizing border security measures; and addressing root causes of migration to the U.S. from the south. The legislation was introduced into Congress in February last year through bicameral bills sponsored by Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Democratic Congresswoman Linda Snchez of California.

But as Democrats sought to trim down these provisions into piecemeal policies to gain bipartisan support, the smaller bills proposed have largely focused on work-related reforms for immigrants and pathways to citizenship for those who are undocumented, avoiding border security components that may be more appealing to centrists and Republicans especially ahead of midterm elections.

Last year, after months of in-fighting among Democrats, opposition from Republicans, and technical obstacles, President Joe Bidens Build Back Better Act died in Congress. The $1.9 trillion spending bill contained a few immigration provisions watered down from Bidens original immigration reform proposal known as the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021.

Also Read: Green Card Holders Are Able to Vote in NYC Elections

As the name suggests, the U.S. Citizenship Act would have established pathways to citizenship for the countrys 11 million undocumented residents, including those with special status designations such as DREAMers those brought here unlawfully as children and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders. But lawmakers opted to try passing smaller bills, including severely watered down measures where citizenship provisions were left out altogether. Some trimmed-down bills are still floating around Congress a year later, highlighting the possibility of citizenship for millions of undocumented residents who live and work here remains out of reach.

The U.S. Citizenship Act proposed sweeping immigration reforms, such as expanding legal work access for immigrants and dependents potentially affecting 13.6 million green card holders in the U.S. as well as providing a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents. According to the Center for American Progress, the U.S.s undocumented workforce alone contributes an estimated $79.7 billion in federal taxes, in addition to $41 billion in state and local taxes.

But the U.S. Citizenship Act was ultimately abandoned by lawmakers in favor of smaller separate bills, given the unlikelihood that such sweeping reforms would gain enough support from Republicans and conservative Democrats to pass the Senate. Some smaller measures have stalled in Congress while others have perished as part of the broader Build Back Better bill.

Within this component of the U.S. Citizenship Act, the bills most notable measures aimed to provide a clear pathway to citizenship for different groups of undocumented immigrants. It established an eight-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who pass background checks and paid taxes, without having to fear being deported. The citizenship measure also extended to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients, TPS holders, and farmworkers, providing these groups with an expedited three-year path to citizenship.

This component of the bill also targeted reforms for immigrants with legal status. In addition to reducing the residence requirement for naturalization from five years to three years for all lawful permanent residents, the bill would cut down the severe visa backlog for green card holders and their families by recapturing unused visas from previous years to be allocated to family members of green card holders, with the goal of keeping families together. It also allows for approved family members to join their families in the U.S. temporarily while waiting for green card approval.

Beyond that, the bill would expand access to green cards for low-wage immigrant workers and give work authorization to dependents of H-1B visa holders, among other work-related reforms.

This component of the U.S. Citizenship Act was meant to draw away from ineffective and costly measures like constructing a physical border wall along the U.S.s southern border.

The bills border security measures would push the adoption of technology-based techniques instead, prioritizing the use of tech tools to detect illicit drug trafficking through ports of entry. The bill would also authorize funding to upgrade the infrastructure of immigration processing facilities at entry ports to improve officials ability to process asylum seekers.

Notably, this component of the bill includes the No Ban Act, which would prohibit discriminatory bans similar to former President Donald Trumps previous Muslim travel bans by raising the standards for such action to be used.

The third component of the U.S. Citizenship Act was aimed at reducing the flow of migration from the south by addressing the deep-rooted factors driving migration to the U.S., such as violence and poverty. Since taking office, Biden has sought to build partnerships with countries in Central Americas Northern Triangle comprised of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to tackle these root issues, an endeavor that has been primarily overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Among the measures within this component was the creation of safe legal channels for people to seek asylum protections while based in Central America, a means to deter individuals from trekking to the U.S.s southern border, a perilous journey that kills hundreds of people each year.

This component of the bill would also establish new programs and upgrade existing ones to prevent migrant children from being separated from their families for prolonged periods of time as had happened under the countrys previous zero tolerance policy. Namely, the bill would create a new Central American Family Reunification Parole Program, which would grant parole to certain citizens of Central American countries to enter the U.S., and revamp the existing Central American Minors Program, which allows at-risk children to come to the U.S. as refugees.

This component of the U.S. Citizenship Act was meant to draw away from ineffective and costly measures like constructing a physical border wall along the U.S.s southern border.

The bills border security measures would push the adoption of technology-based techniques instead, prioritizing the use of tech tools to detect illicit drug trafficking through ports of entry. The bill would also authorize funding to upgrade the infrastructure of immigration processing facilities at entry ports to improve officials ability to process asylum seekers.

Notably, this component of the bill includes the No Ban Act, which would prohibit discriminatory bans similar to former President Donald Trumps previous Muslim travel bans by raising the standards for such action to be used.

The third component of the U.S. Citizenship Act was aimed at reducing the flow of migration from the south by addressing the deep-rooted factors driving migration to the U.S., such as violence and poverty. Since taking office, Biden has sought to build partnerships with countries in Central Americas Northern Triangle comprised of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to tackle these root issues, an endeavor that has been primarily overseen by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Among the measures within this component was the creation of safe legal channels for people to seek asylum protections while based in Central America, a means to deter individuals from trekking to the U.S.s southern border, a perilous journey that kills hundreds of people each year.

This component of the bill would also establish new programs and upgrade existing ones to prevent migrant children from being separated from their families for prolonged periods of time as had happened under the countrys previous zero tolerance policy. Namely, the bill would create a new Central American Family Reunification Parole Program, which would grant parole to certain citizens of Central American countries to enter the U.S., and revamp the existing Central American Minors Program, which allows at-risk children to come to the U.S. as refugees.

It was unlikely that the U.S. Citizenship Acts sweeping immigration legalization would gain enough bipartisan support to pass into law, given Democrats thin majority in the Senate. Lawmakers decided to move forward with piecemeal immigration legislation instead.

In March 2021, the House voted to pass two separate immigration bills: the American Dream and Promise Act and the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. The American Dream and Promise Act offers a conditional 10-year pathway to citizenship for roughly 3.6 million DREAMers. It also grants a shorter pathway to citizenship for the roughly 400,000 TPS recipients living in the U.S., who would be eligible for green cards if they met specific requirements, and would eventually be allowed to apply for citizenship. Meanwhile, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act makes reforms to the H-2A temporary worker program for noncitizen agricultural workers, including the creation of an entirely new status for farmworkers with protections from deportation. The bill would impact 2.4 million farmworkers in the U.S., the majority of whom are immigrants.

In May 2021, House and Senate lawmakers introduced bicameral bills for another separate citizenship bill, the Citizenship for Essential Workers Act. The legislation provides a citizenship pathway specifically for undocumented essential workers, estimated to be more than 5 million undocumented workers in the U.S.

All three pieces of immigration legislation have stalled in Congress due to a lack of bipartisan support, despite various polls showing broad public approval toward providing a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented immigrant groups.

By summer 2021, Senate Democrats began pushing watered-down immigration provisions as part of Bidens comprehensive Build Back Better Act. A version of the bill that passed through the House later in November carried five trimmed-down immigration provisionsnone of which offered a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Democrats opted to pass the Build Back Better Act through Congress budget reconciliation process so they could bypass the filibuster, which requires 60 votes for any legislation to pass the Senate. Through reconciliation, the bill would only need a simple majority vote to passgiven Democrats slim majority, Vice President Harris, who presides over the Senate, could be the deciding vote to pass the legislation. However, not every legislative item meets the criteria for budget reconciliation. Thats where the parliamentarian comes in to advise the Senate on which items are allowed in the reconciliation bill.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough rejected multiple variations of immigration measures that Democrats tried to include in the budget plans. The final proposal rejected in December included immigration provisions that would expand the Department of Homeland Securitys authority to grant temporary work authorization for certain undocumented immigrants through immigration parole, allowing undocumented persons living in the U.S. five years of work authorization with an option to extend another five years thereafter. According to an analysis of the provision in the House bill by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the measure would have directly benefited 7 million undocumented immigrants.

The nature of MacDonoughs rulings was nonbinding, but Democrats resisted bypassing the parliamentarians advice for fear of setting a precedent that could be used by Republicans when they are in control of the legislature.As such, the Build Back Better Act including the limited immigration measures within it was not passed by Congress. But there is still hope for some immigration measures to get passed this year. The House and the Senate have approved their own versions of the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 meant to boost the U.S.s ability to compete economically against its global rival China. Something to watch in the upcoming months will be lawmakers reconciliation of the separately approved bills, which could include reforms related to so-called highly-skilled immigrants working in the STEM fields.

Read more:
How Congress Killed Immigration ReformDocumented - Documented NY

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) andDick Durbin(D-Ill.) plan to bring together a group of senators interested in trying to revive immigration discussions after the April recess.They want to sit at a table and ask members who have immigration, bipartisan immigration bills, to come and propose those bills to us and see if we can build a 60-vote plus margin for a group of bills.

Are they serious about immigration reform, or are they just doing this so they will be able to say in the upcoming midterm elections that they sponsored a number of immigration reform bills?

It wont take much effort to repackage bills that have already been introduced.

In any case, they seem at least to be open to a variety of approaches to immigration reform, so I will take this opportunity to offer them a few suggestions.

Registry The Democrats tried to include a registry provision update in a reconciliation bill in September 2021, but the Senate parliamentarian made them remove it. That was unfortunate. The registry provision has not been updated since 1986.

The registry provision grants lawful permanent resident status to certain undocumented immigrants who have resided continuously in the United States since before Jan. 1, 1972. This means that registry currently is available only to undocumented immigrants who have lived here continuously for half a century, which greatly reduces the value of the provision.

The Democrats went too far in the other direction with the update they put in the reconciliation bill. It would have changed this date to Jan. 1, 2011, which would make legalization available to approximately 6.7 million undocumented immigrants.

At some point, an undocumented immigrant has been here so long that it would be unconscionable to make him leave. Its just a matter of reaching an agreement on when that point has been reached.

I encourage the senators to include the registry provision in their bipartisan discussion to see if there is a date that would be acceptable to both parties.

DACA Some Republicans are sympathetic towards the plight of DACA participants. Even former President Trumpwanted to help them. He proposed a DACA legalization program that would be a good place to start; that proposal was afour-point framework that only had one provision that was a deal-killer. He wanted to end the practice that opponents refer to as chain migration, the process by which legal U.S. residents may sponsor a family member for immigration to the United States.

I have proposed acompromisethat would provide DACA participants with lawful status through the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) Program, which would also prevent the participant from conferring immigration benefits on his parents when he becomes a lawful permanent resident.

But circumstances have changed since then. A border security crisis has occurred under Bidens presidency. The Border Patrol apprehended nearly a million illegal crossers along the southern border during the first six months of fiscal 2022, and DHS is expecting up to 18,000 illegal crossings per day when the Title 42 order is lifted.

The Democrats may have to stop this flood of illegal crossers if they want Republican votes for a legalization program of any kind.

Unfair labor practices Most immigrants who enter the United States unlawfully come here to find employment. The shorthand description of this situation is that they are drawn here by the job magnet.

It is easy for unscrupulous employers to exploit them because they can be reported to ICE if they complain about the way they are treated.

The employer sanctions in INA section 1324a prohibit employers from hiring immigrants they know are not authorized to work. An employer who violates this provision is subject to fines of up to $10,000 for each undocumented employee. But this hasnt eliminated the job magnet.

The senators could augment employment sanctions with a bill establishing a Labor Department task force to mount a large-scale, nationwide campaign to stop the exploitation of employees in industries known to hire large numbers of undocumented immigrants. This would take immigration status out of the picture. The enforcement actions wouldnt be based on the immigration status of the exploited employees.

Expanded CAM program According to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, DHS has a plan for managing any potential increase in illegal border crossings when the Title 42 order is terminated.

The plan relies primarily on a newimmigration processthat will permit USCIS asylum officers to adjudicate the asylum claims of illegal crossers who establish a well-founded fear of persecution. This currently is done by immigration judges. If an asylum officers denies a claim, however, the applicant will be able to submit it again to an immigration judge.

USCIS is already struggling with a backlog of more than9.5 million benefit applications, and this includes about435,000 affirmative asylum applications. Asylum applications are considered affirmative when they are filed directly with USCIS and defensive if they are filed in removal proceedings before an immigration judge.

The other part of the plan is adedicated docketfor families who are apprehended after making illegal border crossings. This has been tried before by two previous administrations withmuch smaller immigration court backlogs, and it failed both times.

Human Rights Firstclaimsthat the dedicated dockets in previous administrations led tohigh ratesofin absentiaremovals, mistaken decisions that needed to be corrected on appeal, andincreased backlogs. AndGracie Willis, a staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center,thinksit is unfair to the individuals who have been waiting for their day in court for years to establish a rocket docket for families who have just crossed the border.

The senators could provide a better option with a bill to establish an expanded version of the Central American Minors (CAM) Refugee and Parole Program. The CAM program provides locations outside of the United States for screening the persecution claims of certain Central American children who have parents in the United States.

If the CAM program is expanded to include anyone with a persecution claim, asylum seekers would not have to make the dangerous journey to the United States to seek relief and there would be fewer illegal crossings at our border.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years. He subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. Follow him at https://nolanrappaport.blogspot.com

More here:
Senators say theyre interested in bipartisan immigration plan; here are some suggestions - The Hill