Here’s a generous snippet of Andrea R. Flores’s op-ed about changing our asylum system in the New York Times:
U.S. asylum laws were designed to protect people fleeing harm. They were enacted in the decades following the Holocaust to ensure that the United States never again turned away people fleeing persecution. But now, many blame these laws for the chaos and inhumanity at the nation’s southern border.
The biggest blow to America’s commitment to asylum came during the pandemic, when former President Donald Trump invoked Title 42, an emergency measure that allowed border agents to turn away asylum seekers, under the justification of preventing the spread of the virus.
When Title 42 restrictions were lifted in May, President Biden enacted a carrot-and-stick approach aimed at deterring new asylum seekers from traveling by foot to the border. These new measures included a set of legal pathways, including a parole program that allows people from select countries, including Cuba and Haiti, to legally enter the country for at least two years, provided they have a financial sponsor in the United States. Doing so has discouraged would-be migrants from taking a dangerous trek with a smuggler, often through multiple continents.
This approach would have been a great step forward if it hadn’t been paired with a countermeasure that prohibits some asylum-seekers at the border from applying for protection in the United States. The vast majority of migrants must secure appointments at an official port of entry, which are difficult to obtain, or else they will be subject to expedited removal if they cannot prove that they sought legal protection in another country along the way.
On July 25, a federal court ruled that the president’s asylum ban was illegal. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put the ruling on hold for 14 days to allow the administration to appeal.
The nation’s asylum system was not designed to meet the needs of all immigrants forced to flee their homes. But the global challenges we’re facing require a reimagining of the country’s immigration framework. Until Congress finds the political will to act, the president should use his authority to relieve pressure on our asylum system and give migrants the ability to legally work once they reach the United States.
Here’s my question. Unless you assume that no one ever lies, how does that differ from an open border? Basically, I can think of no surer way to guarantee that we adopt restrictions on immigration and asylum tighter than those imposed in the 1920s and changed in the 1960s than Ms. Flores’s proposal.
I don’t see any chance of a 60 seat filibuster proof Senate majority that is necessary to change the underlying law to restrict immigration.
I think the chance of a President willing to enforce immigration law robustly coming into office is below 50% for at least the next 4 years.
Curious.
That sounds accurate, but is it a good thing?
Perhaps the comfortably entrenched white minority will achieve the black and brown majority they desire, or, they may only desire the appearance of that, which they’re close to achieving today.
Anyone remember Hans Breivik?
Do you believe him irrational?
“is it a good thing?”
Its the wrong take (and certainly not my view) to focus on dystopias based on demographic changes.
My view is a well governed system would benefit would be immigrants, this country, and the “old” country. A badly governed (or non-governed) system harms everyone.
Sadly, it doesn’t harm everyone. It helps a very small number and hurts everybody else. The small number are four square in favor of maintaining the present non-system.
Furthermore, it makes a difference WHO the immigrants are. The evidence that people bring their politics and culture with them when they emigrate is overwhelming. We are well on our way to becoming a Central American country and that doesn’t appeal to me.