Amendment to Immigration Bill Would Provide Amnesty to Illegals Displaced by Global Warming
Just as realistic…
Senator Brian Schatz’s (D-HI) filed an amendment for the immigration bill Wednesday that would allow stateless people in the U.S. to seek conditional lawful status if their nations have been made uninhabitable by climate change.
The Senate’s immigration bill currently recognizes that people who come to the U.S. may have no country to return to for a variety of reasons and allows them to come forward to apply for legal status as a stateless person. But one cause for displacement that is overlooked in current law is how climate change has caused people to lose their homes and their nationality.
Noting that climate change is not some “abstract challenge,” but is already displacing people across the world, Schatz explained:
The amendment I am proposing is quite simple. If enacted, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, may designate individuals or a group of individuals displaced permanently by climate change as stateless persons.
Again, let me be clear about what this amendment does. It simply recognizes that climate change, like war, is one of the most significant contributors to homelessness in the world. And like with states torn apart and made uninhabitable by war, we have an obligation not to deport people back to a country made uninhabitable by sea level rise and other extreme environmental changes that render these states desolate. It does not grant any individual or group of individuals outside the United States with any new status or avenue for seeking asylum in the United States.
Ace of Spades explains that this is not an actual proposal per say, but rather a political game on the part of Democrats.
What’s going on is that Liberals are offering absurd amendments to be “traded away” in exchange for Conservatives dropping their non-absurd demands, such as for increased border security.
Who do you have more faith in winning the battle, Democrats who have a long history of winning absurd arguments, or the Gang of 8?