The Boston Globe

Here’s what’s in the Senate border deal for Mass.

Bill offers more shelter money, faster job permits

- Tal Kopan can be reached at tal.kopan@globe.com. Follow her @talkopan. By Tal Kopan GLOBE STAFF

WASHINGTON — Buried in the weeds of the headline-making Senate border deal are policies with significan­t implicatio­ns for Massachuse­tts as it struggles with a surge of migrants.

In broad strokes, the bipartisan compromise, which faces an uncertain outcome in Congress, would enact several conservati­ve measures at the border as part of a bigger package to send tens of billions of dollars to US allies Ukraine and Israel. Attracting the most attention are provisions that would effectivel­y shut down the border if crossings reach a certain magnitude and that would raise the standard for migrants seeking asylum.

Several progressiv­es and pro-immigratio­n groups are blasting the deal’s changes as too draconian, while conservati­ves argue it’s too lenient, leaving the bill’s future in the Senate in doubt. House leadership, meanwhile, has declared it dead on arrival.

Here’s what’s on the line for Massachuse­tts, where migrants have overwhelme­d the state’s shelter system and local politician­s have begged for more federal assistance.

More money for sheltering

The most straightfo­rward piece of the bill that affects Massachuse­tts is more funding for a federal program that reimburses states and cities that are sheltering migrants as they pursue stable lives in the country.

The bill would add $1.4 billion for the Shelter and Services Program, nearly $1 billion of which would be available immediatel­y. The remainder of the money would become available in tranches if the federal Department of Homeland Security meets certain benchmarks, such as increasing detention and processing capabiliti­es at the border and conducting a certain number of deportatio­ns.

But the money may only go so far, as multiple states and cities compete for the funds. The bill explicitly indicates that the money is not limited to entities that have previously received funds from the program. Massachuse­tts’ lawmakers have previously expressed concern that the $1.4 billion was not enough to cover the need nationally. They’ve argued the state has been spending $45 million a month on such services and has only received roughly $2 million for the city of Boston from the roughly $1 billion doled out by the federal program so far.

Faster work authorizat­ions and asylum processing

Local officials have strongly advocated for faster distributi­on of work permits to migrants, saying it would be a winwin for employers who need workers and migrants looking to support themselves. The permits also would ease reliance on state services sheltering people while they wait for authorizat­ion to work in the country.

The bill would seek to expedite one key slowdown on work authorizat­ion — the asylum process. In addition to raising the bar to qualify at the border to come into the US and pursue an asylum claim, which, if successful, grants citizenshi­p, the bill seeks to streamline the process to function more quickly, though potentiall­y reducing the number of individual­s who qualify. In one key change, migrants would be given authorizat­ion to work as soon as they’re found eligible to seek asylum, instead of having to wait for six months. The bill also would attempt to reduce the time it takes to get a final decision on an asylum claim to only six months, down from five to seven years currently.

While not all of the migrants in Massachuse­tts are asylumseek­ers, many are, so the provision could significan­tly reduce the load on the state’s shelters and legal services.

More visas and pathways to citizenshi­p

The bill would create a path to permanent residency status for Afghans who came to the country in the aftermath of the chaotic pullout of US forces from the country in 2021, many of whom helped the United States in its 20-year war there. Jeff Thielman, CEO of the Internatio­nal Institute of New England, said there are roughly 2,000 Afghans in the region under immigratio­n parole, and permanent status would benefit them.

“Sooner or later, the Congress is going to have to adopt something that won’t make everybody happy, including folks like me, and we’re going to have to accept it in order to get a better-run immigratio­n system,” Thielman said. “There are some things in here that those of us in the advocacy community have pushed for for a long time, so I think, personally, based on what I’m seeing, I would urge all sides to vote for it and move on.”

The bill also would increase the number of available visas for families and work categories, allowing more legal immigrants to seek permanent status. In addition, it would give work authorizat­ion to family members who come with them, and fix a problem caused by the visa backlog that had led some children of legal immigrants who grew up in the US to age out of legal status under their parents’ visas, putting them at risk of deportatio­n from the only country they know.

Other changes

There are other smaller provisions that could affect the state. The bill would, for the first time, require the government to pay for lawyers to represent children under 14 years old who came to the US alone and are facing immigratio­n court proceeding­s, as well as for legal services for individual­s found incompeten­t to represent themselves. That’s welcomed by local advocacy and immigratio­n legal groups, although they have pushed for representa­tion for older children as well.

In addition, the border shutdown measures and greater standards for asylum claims could reduce the overall number of immigrants coming to Massachuse­tts.

What’s not in it

In one move heralded by the local advocacy community, the bill does not curtail the administra­tion’s programs to admit migrants who apply while still in certain countries, including Haiti and Venezuela. Those policies have reduced US border crossings by people from those countries.

The bill also does not include pathways to citizenshi­ps for undocument­ed immigrants already in the US as traditiona­lly sought by the left, including a broader group of so-called dreamers who are part of the DACA program and migrants from disaster- or war-stricken countries covered by Temporary Protected Status.

 ?? SALWAN GEORGES/WASHINGTON POST/FILE ?? Migrants walked along the border wall on the Arizona side.
SALWAN GEORGES/WASHINGTON POST/FILE Migrants walked along the border wall on the Arizona side.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States