Welcome to MetroFocus.

The micro crisis in New York is showing no signs of letting up.

Within 72,000 migrants have reportedly arrived since last spring with over 45,000 currently in the city's care.

In response, Mayor Adams has carried out a number of controversial measures, perhaps the most controversial, this decision to challenge New York's right to shelter law which essentially compels the city to provide shelter for all those legitimately experience and homelessness in New York.

The situation around the country here at a particular at the southern border has become one of the biggest political issues as we approach the 2024 election.

One of the most outspoken critics of this crisis is among elected officials, specifically the 11th congressional district can -- Congress on.

She joins us now with the steps that she believes need to be taken.

Congresswoman, thank you for joining us.

As I said in the introduction, with 72,000 asylum-seekers have arrived in New York since last spring and over 45,000 are currently in the city.

Those are the numbers.

But how do the numbers reflect the reality experienced in Staten Island and the parts of South Brooklyn that you represent?

>> As you know, New York City has always been a beacon of hope and opportunity for immigrants around the world and we have been a very generous nation over the course of our history.

The issue with this particular crisis is that the president on his first day changed a lot of the policies which have allowed this mass migration.

When you look at the court data, 60% over the first year of the Biden presidency, 60% of those who claim asylum were denied.

There are a lot of people taking advantage of our generosity to try to into the country, living asylum and they don't -- they are not eligible.

What happens now is we are seeing this court system in New York City backed up significantly.

The last I checked, it was a decade to wait for an actual appointment.

Those people who are true asylum-seekers, those who have followed our nation's policies and laws, and have been waiting in the queue are seeing further delays.

I represent a diverse district, I have immigrants from all over the world, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, South America, Central America.

But the issue that I hear from my constituents, including those who are immigrants themselves is that it is unfair what is happening right now when they came to this country, they never asked for anyone to pay for anything, they just work hard, multiple jobs, like my own parents did, to sacrifice without any assistance for the -- from the government.

The system is complete the broken and the mayor exacerbated the problem by misinterpreting the right to shelter law which was a 1939 court decree intended for homeless New Yorkers, homeless citizens.

Misinterpreting saying that citizens of other countries are eligible which has created a problem for the city, a real burden for the taxpayers.

>> Mayor Adams also said recently that the city is a victim of its own success because quote, we have managed the crisis so well people will have the belief that it can't be so bad.

Is he right in the sense that most New Yorkers don't see this as a crisis?

>> Not those that I represent in Staten Island and southern Brooklyn.

They see it as a tremendous crisis.

We know taxpayers are paying upwards of $5 billion to house these individuals currently here.

When you are talking about top -- tough economic times, people having difficulty paying their rent, their mortgage, keeping up with property tax which has gone up every single year because the tax levy has increased by the city, to tell them now that they have to pay for the shelter of these individuals to the extent the mayor even wants to pay their rent for an entire year or perhaps longer, how is that fair to hard-working New Yorkers who get up every day and pay taxes and they are struggling on their own that they will pay the for these individuals.

The mayor has done this and we want to see what the court says is challenging the right to shelter law, not just the law itself but the clarification that the law applies to citizens , homeless New Yorkers, not citizens of other countries.

Despite his interpretation, all 6 million migrants came to New York City, New York taxpayers would be responsible for housing appeared that interpretation is lopsided.

>> That is his interpretation.

And you say the law was never intended to be that.

However, Robert Hayes, the housing advocate, who is chiefly responsible over 40 years ago to have this law passed recently said no, no.

It's true, it does apply to these foreigners, document it or undocumented, and he is fighting against the mayor's challenge to the law.

How do you respond to that?

>> I think there are those left-wing groups that will continue to try to push, but the reality is, think about it from my perspective here that if everybody on the planet came to New York City and said they needed housing, would New York City have to provide it?

That is incredibly impossible.

We have our own housing crisis in affordability and available Hoopty.

What I would also suggest -- availability.

What I would suggest and the mayor has started to some extent, I think he should sue rather than simply challenge the Biden administration, he has pushed back and told them to do a decompression plan.

I say just to secure the box -- Borders, reimpose the policies that were under the Trump Administration, remain in Mexico and catch and release and make sure people to apply for asylum as they are supposed to.

>> The mayor recently floated the idea of housing asylum-seekers in private homes for a fee that the city would pay.

Some have dismissed this idea, outright, some have mocked it, what is your take?

>> It is a terrible idea, a slap in the face to the text tape -- taxpayer.

New Yorkers are already struggling and now you're going to tell them that they need to pay to provide free rent to individuals who just entered our country last week.

How is that fair to hard-working New Yorkers?

I understand that we are compassionate city, but where's the compassion for the taxpayer.

>> Anspach -- talking about his proposal to pay homeowners voluntarily to partake if they wish.

>> Is paid by so many, they paid by the taxpayer.

They're not taking them in for free.

There, Sabine Lisicki at 100 to five dollars a night which turns out to be between 45 and $50,000 annually.

Per individual.

That is a tremendous burden on the taxpayer and again, when we are talking about cutting city services across the board, talking about increasing property taxes, talking about things that citizens are going to suffer as a result, this is not the right approach.

>> But the reality is that they are paying hotels, a lot more money than that.

But that aside, this proposal struck me particularly, like your mother, a Cuban exile came in in the early 60's.

And the way they came was through Jamaica, and they spent a month in the home of it to make a family.

Thousands of Cubans got out of Cuba as a result.

More importantly for me is a little kid was how wonderful, how warm, how humane it was to spend those 30 days with that family.

I'm just wondering if just on that level of the idea has merit.

>> If people want to volunteer to open up their homes it's one thing.

My mother, when she came, she had her family sponsor and again, there wasto the taxpayer.

I think that most immigrants who have come here came on their own and they never asked for anything but the opportunity.

And they worked, sometimes mobile jobs as my father did to make ends meet to be able to support themselves.

The idea is that we are a welcoming mission but when it comes to saying that we are now going to house and we provide all the services that citizens do not even get for free, that is when it becomes a problem.

The problem could be resolved.

You don't need to be doing this.

We could be looking at the federal government for the solution and I have said repeatedly there are a number of things that could address this crisis.

We passed the border security bill to stem the flow.

But we also want to look at increasing basis.

Our bill did that for a certain industry.

We could look at an increased and the number of employer-sponsored pieces, family sponsor pieces, student pieces when people come here to get educated, why are they being set -- sent back to their country, we should appreciate their intelligence and talent at put it to work here.

There is that aspect of it.

But we also need to add judges and asylum officers to differentiate between legitimate seekers and those who are not.

There has to be a distinction because the majority of the people coming are not the gym at when you look at the core data over the last couple of years, -- >> Quickly, what is a legitimate asylum-seekers?

>> By the criteria, they are fleeing religious or physical education.

We see individuals from 100 different countries coming to the border claiming asylum.

That's number one.

Number two, they should be applying for the next safe country.

If you come from 100 different countries the United States is not the next safe countries.

That is why the Trump era policies put some type of order to that process where they would have to apply and remain in Jamaica or elsewhere until their court date came.

>> Under those definitions, most of the Cubans would not fit.

We were not under direct persecution, my parents left because they did not want to live without freedom, and they were afraid they might -- that my father, my brother and I would be indoctrinated but there was no chance of being arrested or killed.

And in New York City, many of the asylum-seekers were Venezuelans, a country which resembles a lot what Cuba did in the 60's.

Unless you are very strict in the definition some of these people really do, many of them, especially the ones coming to New York City do fit the description, no?

>> The people fleeing Cuba and Venezuela are legitimate asylum-seekers under the definition as they have historically been.

Let's be clear also, look at what they are escaping.

They are skipping socialism.

Communism.

-- escaping socialism.

Common is in.

Some of my colleagues love to support certain college cash policies.

These immigrants are flanked terrible policies put in place by Socialists and Communists.

I would say that all hundred nations that the individuals are coming from, some would not qualify.

But the point is that we need asylum officers and judges to hear these cases more quickly to Jeffrey and shared -- to differentiate who is abusing the system.

We should be hearing these cases with infrastructure at the border which is what I have been saying.

What is frustrating to me is that the house passed a bill which streamlined asylum that actually increase the number of visas and protecting children who are being trafficked, children coming over by themselves.

And also implemented border security, yet we have seen zero action from the Senate.

I would urge Chuck Schumer to at least take away bill, if you don't like our bill, that pass your own.

>> The bill that you passed, the border act of 2023?

Border security act of 2023.

That includes the going back to the remain in Mexico policy which means that people, asylum-seekers must remain in Mexico until their court date is established.

Secondly, it calls for restarting the border wall.

These are two things that are kind of like poison pills.

The Senate is controlled by the Democrats, it's unlikely that they will pass it.

But if for some reason they do the president has already said that he would veto it.

So, why pursue something that is almost certainly not going to be able to happen?

>> This is the solution from the house.

This is what we would like to see done.

It's not just the border security that you mention, but what customs officers said they needed to get done -- the job done.

We are giving them that what they made.

The government would be wise to listen to the people who are on the ground doing the job and giving them what they need.

In addition, it does address some visas, some asylum streamlining.

But if the Senate does not like our bill and does not want to take up our bill then they should take up their own.

Past what they think it is -- think is ideal and rickets the differences.

That is the only way we can move forward in a bipartisan manner.

I would love the president just to undo his executive orders which created this problem.

Quite quickly, he created it and he can undo it by just changing the policies which she has in place.

Aside from that we need to see bipartisan action to avert this crisis just like we saw with the debt limit.

>> We will have to end it there.

Thank you so much for talking about this very important topic with this.