New York City to limit shelter stays for migrants | The Hill

Meantime, right now, you are looking live at New York City, where there is said to be a major change in a different policy in how long migrants must be housed in the Big Apple. The New York Times is now reporting that after 30 days, adult migrants will not be allowed to reapply for housing. Migrant families will only be guaranteed up to 60 days now with the ability to reapply after that point. Come on in, the Republican congressman from New York, Anthony D'Esposito, also a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Congressman, thanks for being back with us here on the Hill. Some pretty big news there in your backyard today when you heard the news. I'm wondering what you thought of it. Well, I think it's another indicator that Mayor Adams wanted to serve as this sanctuary for migrants coming to the United States of America, but actually had no plan in place to serve as that sanctuary city. So hopefully, this is a step in the direction of getting things towards order in New York City. Should it be permanently ended, right? Because New York City is one of those places that still guarantees housing to the homeless. So is this only somewhat of a step, or do you think it's the right step? Or does more need to be done? I think, obviously, more needs to be done. I mean, when you hear a Democratic mayor saying that the migrant situation in New York is going, or the migrant situation in this country is going to, quote, destroy New York City, I think every step needs to be made. I mean, we're seeing crime increase. We're seeing those migrants that have committed crimes and then released out into the street to commit more crimes. The quality of life in New York City has been destroyed. And I'm not saying that this is all about the migrants, but we've seen that coupled with the failed policies of the state legislature and our governor implementing cashless bail and criminal justice reform. It is a free-for-all. And right now, the handcuffs that are on the gun belts of our finest officers, they seem to be handcuffing law enforcement instead of actually putting the handcuffs on those that should be wearing them. This humanitarian parole program, Congressman, that we were talking about to start off the show and this case in Massachusetts, as it relates to the program here, trying to disincentivize at the border illegal activity and to have migrants come through legally and flown in through these four nations. What does the administration get? What have they gotten right with it? And what have they gotten wrong with it, as you see it, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee? Well, I've said from day one that I believe in people being and having the ability to achieve the American dream. But you need to come through the front door. And obviously, if the administration believes that, then they should take the steps necessary in order to see people come through that front door but make sure that they're vetted and make sure that they don't pose any threats to the United States of America and the people that live in it. Well, in this case, didn't he come through the front door, essentially? He was vetted. Yeah, he was vetted. But was he vetted correctly? I think that's really the question, is that, what is the vetting process that they're conducting? And is the policies that have been put in place by the Biden administration overwhelming those who are actually doing the vetting process? Do they have the ability to keep up with vetting those with the volume of individuals who are coming into this country? Congressman Anthony D'Esposito from New York, we've got to leave it there. We thank you for your time, as always, sir. And we will talk to you again soon. Congressman, thanks. Thank you for watching. And make sure you go to joinnn.com to find NewsNation on your television provider. And don't forget to click the red Subscribe button below to get more of NewsNation's fact-driven, unbiased coverage.