No. of Recommendations: 2
So even if there's an argument that an expedited hearing process might result in fewer successful applications, immigration hawks believe you'd still end up with more immigrants than if you force them to endure a years-long delay, because more people would make the journey and apply. Even though the delay imposes enormous pain on the communities these asylees end up living in, it's worth it to reduce the number of approved asylum applications.This is simplifying the right's position a bit.
Yes, we want fewer incentives for illegals to come here. The plain fact of the matter is that we can't sustain the numbers of people we're seeing cross the border. Yes, I know our history.
The notion of hiring more judges and making it faster to get through the asylum process only works if there were ironclad assurances that the Biden administration (or any future democrat administration, for that matter) wouldn't all of a sudden game the system, change the rules, and keep the floodgates open. The democrats have earned that level of distrust as they've been inconsistent and duplicitous partners since the Reagan years (where Reagan agreed to a 1-time amnesty in exchange for border security. The democrats got their amnesty and never gave security in return).
Here's Chuck Grassley on the process back in 2013
https://www.cairco.org/news/grassley-lessons-learn...Unfortunately, we aren’t enforcing the laws we have on the books today. The American people don’t trust that we will enforce these laws in the future. We provided amnesty overnight in 1986 and didn’t fulfill the other parts of the equation. Border security, enforcement measures, and legal immigration reform need to be the first things on our agenda in 2013.
