I am writing in support of the Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024, a bipartisan bill on immigration.

We know we have a crisis at our southern border, with thousands of people trying to get into our country, to escape economic hardship , violence from gangs and political freedom. The USA has always stood as a beacon of hope for many. Most of our ancestors (all unless you are first nation, or came in chains at the bottom of a slave ship) came here for a better life, whether that was for religious freedom — freedom from dictatorships, economics, or other types of oppression. We as Americans pride ourselves on being the melting pot of the world.

We have known for a long time comprehensive immigration reform is needed to address the thousands and thousands of people seeking refuge at our southern border. However, addressing immigration is hard. So hard that Congress has kicked it down the road year after year, even as the crisis grows. Our Constitution clearly puts the responsibility of immigration directly on Congress, yet they fail to act. In Article 1 Section 8 the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the responsibility “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” determining how immigrants can become citizens.

The Senate has finally written a bipartisan immigration bill that would address some of the major issues at our southern border, as well as providing critical funding for Israel and Ukraine.

The bill would limit the number of immigrants who could cross our southern border. It gives Homeland security the authority to close the border completely if the number goes over an average of 4,000 in a day and must close it if the average is 5,000 or more. In addition it would impose an “emergency authority” that would leave asylum fully out of reach for those crossing between ports of entry for much of the next three years.

The bill establishes a new asylum process that would expedite cases to be heard, as well as raising the standards one must first pass for asylum. At the initial interview for asylum the person would have to prove “clear and convincing proof” of fear of persecution if returned to their home country. Asylum cases would be moved from immigration to homeland security where they would be heard by asylum officers. This change should make the process much quicker. (Currently many asylum seekers have to wait years for their case to be heard.) Those who do not meet asylum standards would be returned to their homeland or Mexico. Those initially approved would be given authority to work while waiting for their case to be heard, which must take place within 90 days.

People with a criminal record and those who were living safely in their own country or a third country, would be rejected.

In short, this bill would ensure migrants receive initial screening within 90 days of arrival; if they get a negative decision they would be immediately returned to their home country; if they pass the initial screening they will be given authority to work within the country while they wait for the hearing which must take place within 90 days.

This bill falls short of what most of us, both Republican and Democratic parties, would want in a comprehensive bill. Yet this bill would do so much to ease the strain at our southern border.

I ask, is no bill better than this one? How can people complain about the crisis at the border then refuse to even bring this bill to the floor?

I shudder to think that the denial of this bill is all due to one person wanting the crisis at the border to continue to rage as he sees it beneficial to his campaign. So much for putting country over politics or personal gain.

I urge every American to demand that this bill be passed. We must not play politics with this issue. We must pass this bill to protect our borders while remaining a haven for those truly in fear of persecution.

Judi Lutz Woods is a Fredonia resident.