The editors of the Washington Post have a plan for regulating the chaos at our southern border:
Republicans have one thing right about the border: The Biden administration’s strategy to keep asylum seekers from flocking to the United States is not working.
Many, including us, had high hopes. But last fiscal year’s 3.2 million “encounters†with migrants — occurring either at official entry points or, more often, when the Border Patrol nabbed migrants entering illegally elsewhere — were the highest on record, by a very long shot. Chances are this fiscal year, they will be higher.
Democrats might flinch at the proposition, but the Republican idea that it should be tougher for asylum seekers to enter the United States makes some sense. Hundreds of thousands of people who reach the southern border every year hope to leave a dismal existence behind, but most are not fleeing persecution, in fear for life or limb. They seek asylum because the U.S. asylum system is the only door available to knock on.
Their plan consists of the following bullet points:
- Raise the standard of proof required for asylum
- Increase the number of immigration court judges significantly
- Increase the number of slots available for legal immigration
which you might recognize as having some resemblance to what I’ve been advocating around here for most of the last decade. I would add the following:
- Anyone who has fled their home country, entering a country in between their home country and the United States is definitionally not seeking asylum
- Anyone not seeking asylum who wishes to enter the U. S., presumably to work, must speak, read, and write English
- Anyone not seeking asylum must have an actual job offer in the United States or some documentable skill to confirm the likelihood of their securing a job
- There should be some absolute ceiling on the number of migrants we accept in a year.
It should be noted that in addition to those with appointments and those apprehended (3.2 million) last year there were at least 300,000 “got-aways”, individuals who were observed but not apprehended.
As to my last bullet point consider the following:
More than 900 million people want to migrate permanently to another country and the U. S. is a top destination although not the only destination. At least in the United States most migrants who will never rise above an entry level income due to limited English will always be an economic liability. Someone has got to pay for their safety, health, and educating their children. That “someone” is you and me.
I am pretty OK with that list. I also think you are wrong on your first point as it’s pretty rational if you are validly seeking asylum to prefer to join family for example. I would also add one extra to the list. What would be better is if we could get people to apply for refugee status. It’s basically the same as asylum but you apply outside the US. Let’s increase our capacity to process refugees in key countries and advertise that you have a better chance of success if you apply outside the US, or at least do something to incentivize refugee status over asylum.
OTOH, let’s all acknowledge none of this will happen. By law we have to accept people claiming asylum. This should have and could have been changed years ago. Instead we talk about stupid stuff like a wall.
Steve
BTW, steve, you might want to check 8 U.S. Code § 1158 – Asylum. What I wrote in that first bullet point of mine conforms quite closely to its valid exclusions.
I think the fundamental problem is that our political class is all being dishonest about immigration. There is a lot of talk about it, but no one offers more than platitudes.