Senate Releases Border Deal with Significant Immigration Reforms

Washington, D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Codifies a policy that requires at least 1,400 asylum applications to be processed at ports of entry when the emergency authority is triggered.
Expedites the processing timeline from years to six months. Introduces a new process in which US Citizenship and Immigration Services would decide an asylum claim without it going through the immigration court system. The process doesn't apply to unaccompanied migrant children.
If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS is required to use the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority.
New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully.
Preserves the president's authority to designate humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis. President Joe Biden has used this authority for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians among other populations.
Raises the legal standard of proof to pass initial screening for asylum seekers, making it potentially more difficult for them to pass.
The Senate has released a long-awaited border deal that includes significant reforms, including a crackdown on asylum and parole. If passed, this bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades.
Senate Releases Border Deal with Significant Immigration Reforms

The Senate has released a long-awaited border deal that includes significant reforms, including a crackdown on asylum and parole. If passed, this bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades. The proposed package implements strict limits along the US southern border that have not been previously enshrined into law and would curtail asylum at the US southern border. The Senate's proposed border deal package is unlikely to take immediate effect even if it were passed, as it requires an immense number of resources including hiring additional personnel which often takes months. Here are the key changes included in the bill:

New emergency authority to restrict border crossings if daily average migrant encounters reach 4,000 over a one-week span. If that metric is reached, the Homeland Security secretary could decide to largely bar migrants from seeking asylum if they crossed the border unlawfully. If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week,₠DHS is required to use the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority. In the first year, the government can use it for 270 days, then 225 calendar days in the second year, and 180 days in the third year. The authority sunsets after three years. Codifies a policy that requires at least 1,400 asylum applications to be processed at ports of entry when the emergency authority is triggered. Raises the legal standard of proof to pass initial screening for asylum seekers, making it potentially more difficult for them to pass. Expedites the processing timeline from years to six months. ₠Introduces a new process in which US Citizenship and Immigration Services would decide an asylum claim without it going through the immigration court system. The process doesn't apply to unaccompanied migrant children. Preserves the president’s authority to designate humanitarian parole on a case-by-case basis. President Joe Biden has used this authority for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians among other populations. Authorizes 250,000 additional immigrant visas to spread out over five years for families and applies to employment-based immigrants.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It's unclear how effective these new measures will be in reducing illegal immigration.
  • The emergency authority to restrict border crossings may not take immediate effect, as it requires an immense number of resources including hiring additional personnel which often takes months. It also has a time limit.

Sources

74%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Key highlights of the Senate’s proposed border deal package

CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language Priscilla Alvarez, Monday, 05 February 2024 00:17
  • Unique Points
    • The Senate's proposed border deal package would implement strict limits along the US southern border that have not been previously enshrined into law and would, in effect, severely curtail asylum at the US southern border.
    • If passed, this bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades. The Senate's proposed border deal package is unlikely to take immediate effect even if it were passed as it requires an immense number of resources including hiring additional personnel which often takes months.
  • Accuracy
    No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that it will provide a comprehensive overview of the Senate's proposed border deal package when in fact it only provides highlights and does not go into detail about each provision. Secondly, the author claims that if passed, this bill would change immigration law for the first time in decades but fails to mention that previous bills have been introduced with similar provisions before. Thirdly, the article states that migrant crossings increase above 5000 on average per day on a given week and DHS is required to use emergency authority if encounters reach 8500 in one day, which implies that this would be an unprecedented occurrence when in fact it has happened before. Fourthly, the article states that the bill raises the legal standard of proof for asylum seekers but fails to mention that this is a temporary measure and will only last for three years. Lastly, the article claims that there are limited changes made to parole at land borders when in fact it has been narrowed down significantly.
    • ``If passed, this bill would change immigration law for the first time in decades```, which is not entirely accurate as previous bills have been introduced with similar provisions before.
    • The title implies comprehensive coverage of the Senate's proposed border deal package but fails to provide a detailed overview.
  • Fallacies (75%)
    The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that if passed, the bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades without providing any evidence or context about why this is significant. Secondly, there are multiple instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as 'severely curtail asylum at the US southern border' and 'largely bar migrants from seeking asylum'. Thirdly, there is a dichotomous depiction of the bill by stating that it would restrict border crossings while also providing additional resources for processing. Lastly, there are several examples of informal fallacies such as using vague language like 'if passed' and 'likely' without providing any evidence or context.
    • The bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades
    • If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS is required to use the authority. But the federal government is limited in how long it can use the authority.
    • President Joe Biden has used humanitarian parole for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans and Venezuelans among other populations.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article contains several examples of bias. The authors use language that dehumanizes and demonizes immigrants by referring to them as 'migrants' who are seeking 'asylum'. They also use the phrase 'break from decades-long protocol', which implies that there is something inherently wrong with allowing people to seek refuge in a country they have fled persecution. The authors also use language that suggests that immigration is a negative thing, such as referring to it as an emergency authority and saying it would curtail asylum at the US southern border. Additionally, the article contains examples of religious bias by mentioning how President Joe Biden has used humanitarian parole for Ukrainians, Afghans, Cubans, Venezuelans and Haitians.
    • If migrant crossings increase above 5,000 on average per day on a given week, DHS is required to use the authority.
      • President Joe Biden has used humanitarian parole for Ukrainians, Afghans and other populations.
        • The Senate's border deal package would implement strict limits along the US southern border that have not been previously enshrined into law
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Priscilla Alvarez and Lauren Fox have conflicts of interest on the topics of immigration law changes, emergency authority to restrict border crossings, processing asylum applications at ports of entry, legal standard of proof for asylum seekers and Senate.
          • Lauren Fox mentions that Priscilla Alvarez has previously reported on asylum seekers and their legal standard of proof in the past. This could indicate a potential conflict of interest if she is reporting on these same issues again.
            • The article mentions that Priscilla Alvarez has previously reported on immigration policy issues in her work with the Homeland Security secretary. This could indicate a potential conflict of interest if she is reporting on changes to immigration law or emergency authority to restrict border crossings, which are topics related to her previous work.

            81%

            The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
            (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

            A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

            Senate releases long-awaited border legislation, major asylum changes

            Fox News Media Jamie Joseph, Monday, 05 February 2024 13:15
            • Unique Points
              • The Senate has released the text of a long-awaited border deal that includes significant reforms, including a crackdown on asylum and parole.
              • If passed, this bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades.
              • Republican leadership followed suit, all but killing the bill's chances in the House.
            • Accuracy
              • The Senate's proposed border deal package would implement strict limits along the US southern border that have not been previously enshrined into law and would, in effect, severely curtail asylum at the US southern border.
              • If passed, this bill would dramatically change immigration law for the first time in decades. The Senate's proposed border deal package is unlikely to take immediate effect even if it were passed as it requires an immense number of resources including hiring additional personnel which often takes months.
            • Deception (80%)
              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Senate has released the text of a border deal but fails to mention that this bill does not address all aspects of immigration policy and only deals with asylum reforms. Secondly, it quotes President Biden saying he would use an expulsion authority if necessary to shut down the border, which is misleading because there are already existing laws in place that allow for such action. Thirdly, it states that migrants who seek asylum will face a tougher and faster process to having their claim evaluated but fails to mention that this process may not be fair or just for all individuals. Lastly, the article quotes several politicians without providing context on their positions or motivations.
              • President Biden said he would use an expulsion authority if necessary to shut down the border
              • The Senate has released the text of a border deal
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the agreement holds the potential to allocate $60 billion to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel, yet its passage through the House appears doubtful. This statement is not supported by any evidence or data, making it a weak argument. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as
              • The agreement holds the potential to allocate $60 billion to Ukraine and $14 billion to Israel
              • If the number of illegal border crossings reaches above 5,000 daily for a five-day average, an expulsion authority would automatically kick in so that migrants are sent back to Mexico without an opportunity to make an asylum claim.
              • President Biden said he would use it (expulsion authority) to shut down the border as soon as the bill is signed into law.
            • Bias (85%)
              The article contains examples of political bias and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes migrants by referring to them as 'illegal' and portrays the border crisis as a threat to national security. Additionally, the article suggests that there is an ideological divide between Democrats who want open borders and Republicans who want stricter immigration policies.
              • The author portrays the border crisis as a threat to national security
                • The author uses language such as 'illegal immigrants' which dehumanizes migrants
                  • There are quotes from politicians that suggest an ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans on immigration policy.
                  • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    The author has conflicts of interest on the topics of border deal and supplemental spending. The article mentions that Senator James Lankford is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee which oversees immigration policy and funding for it.

                    67%

                    The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
                    (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

                    A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

                    The border deal is out. What now?

                    The Fixing Site: A Summary of the Article. Theodoric Meyer, Monday, 05 February 2024 11:23
                    • Unique Points
                      • The bipartisan border security bill is finally out, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has scheduled the first procedural vote for Wednesday.
                      • Senators released the bill which would be the most significant immigration package in decades if it passed last night after months of negotiations between Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
                      • If this bill reaches the House, it will be dead on arrival.
                    • Accuracy
                      • Republican leadership followed suit, all but killing the bill's chances in the House.
                    • Deception (30%)
                      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that there will be a new plan for dealing with the border after the bill failed to pass. However, it does not mention anything about any new plans or negotiations happening.
                      • Fallacies (75%)
                        The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it quotes House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise stating that the bill will not receive a vote in the House. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing some of the statements made about the bill as 'a sell-out', 'TRASH', an 'annesty bill' and a 'complete betrayal'.
                        • House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has been under tremendous pressure from his fractured and unruly conference to reject it, especially since former president Donald Trump started pushing for the bill to fail. Members on the right immediately derided the bill, calling it 'a sell-out','TRASH','an annesty bill' and a 'complete betrayal.'
                        • Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the No. 4 House Republican, slammed the bill as an absolute non-starter.
                      • Bias (100%)
                        None Found At Time Of Publication
                      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
                        The article discusses the border deal and its failure to pass. The authors have conflicts of interest on several topics related to immigration policy, including Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Mike Johnson (R-LA), Republican leadership, Tracy Chapman and Luke Combs, Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), James Lankford, Kyrsten Sinema and Donald Trump.
                        • The article discusses the border deal failure to pass. The authors have conflicts of interest on several topics related to immigration policy.
                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                          None Found At Time Of Publication