Advice on the Asylum Process

The editors of the Washington Post offer advice to the Congress on reforming the asylum system today. First, they state the problem:

Long-term stability at the border calls for a sustainable approach to asylum — the promise, enshrined in domestic and international law, of haven for people facing “persecution or well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” in their countries of origin. It is a noble and necessary commitment. In practice, however, it was being rendered untenable by the sheer number of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years, each with a legal right to press an asylum claim.

and

Instead of the selective, humanitarian adjunct to general immigration flows that the law intended, asylum is evolving into an open-ended parallel system. The backlog encourages people to make a dangerous and expensive trip to the U.S. border, knowing that — even if their asylum cases are weak — they can live and work in the United States for years pending a ruling. Even those whose claims are rejected, as they were in most final rulings over the past decade, seldom face prompt removal. Meanwhile, those with strong claims wait longer than they should.

Then they offer advice:

One key to a more functional asylum system lies outside of it, in wider channels for legal immigration. As part of this, the Biden administration has already nearly doubled, by regulation, the current statutory cap of 66,000 per year on visas for nonagricultural “guest” workers. Of the additional visas, 20,000 are set aside for historical “sender” countries in Central America and Haiti. That share should be increased, as should the statutory caps. Opening lawful pathways for migrants seeking economic opportunity would reduce the number seeking to enter the country by gaming the asylum system. It would also enhance the legitimacy — actual and perceived — of the limitations on immigration that necessarily remain.

Meanwhile, the United States should seek to share responsibility with other countries to resettle asylum seekers. Mr. Biden needs to engage likely partners in the Americas and beyond, including by offering to support their capacities to absorb and protect people. His new plan sets a precedent by relying on Mexico to take in 30,000 people per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela — which had been refusing to accept returnees from the United States — and turning away more asylum seekers who travel through third countries such as Mexico before crossing the U.S. border.

I agree with their advice as far as it goes. I would offer more.

First, I think we should accept a considerable number of those seeking asylum but we should be clear-headed about what is and is not a legitimate cause for asylum. The passage from the Immigration and Naturalization Act quoted above should be an absolute guideline, expanded by statute. Unless otherwise provided by law simply having a poor country as a country of origin is not a legitimate cause for asylum. Although the quoted passage does not make it crystal clear, the “fear” must be personal, due to persecution directed at the individual or the individual as a member of a well-defined group for political or religious reasons. While we may sympathize with them deeply, battered wives don’t qualify as asylum-seekers.

Second, I think we should greatly expand the number of work visas for which people from Mexico and Guatemala are eligible and application for those visas should be through normal processes not by crossing the border and claiming asylum. As noted above most asylum requests by individuals from Mexico, Central, or South America or the Caribbean are declined.

I agree with the editors that Congress should approve funding for additional agents who should be doing on the spot determination of eligibility for asylum. That should be done by statute rather than executive order. If letting the determination of eligibility for asylum be done by agents (rather than by judges) according to clear and strict guidelines, a reform long overdue, is rejected by the courts, IMO judges should be drafted for the duty under the president’s emergency powers.

2 comments… add one
  • Andy Link

    In theory (and theory is always questionable when it comes to politics), Congress could avoid the big questions and big fights about immigration generally by fulling funding the asylum adjudication system. Many people will stop coming if they know their asylum claims will be adjudicated in weeks instead of years.

  • steve Link

    Yes. If your neighbor leaves to seek asylum and 3 weeks later is back with having asylum denied then you arent likely to take a shot at it. What happens now is that your neighbor leaves and stays gone.

    Steve

Leave a Comment