For decades, granting political asylum has been part of the story America has told about itself. As a Western democracy and a nation of immigrants, in keeping with its national ethos, the United States has an obligation to provide a safe haven for those fleeing persecution in their home countries.
But regardless of who wins the White House in November, interviews with about two dozen immigration lawyers, academics, and former federal officials show that the 2024 presidential election will be a major challenge to the refugee system as we know it. It is said that it is likely to mark the end. The system is broken, said many critics, supporters and even ordinary Americans, the result of its transformation into something not intended at its creation.
Former President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have very different views on immigration policy, but both candidates have nonetheless promised significant limits on asylum grants, making the United States a world leader in aiding refugees. This suggests a complete review of long-standing commitments.
The changes, which come in response to a growing number of Americans concerned about the arrival of immigrants, could have far-reaching implications for those who have long seen the United States as a beacon of hope that protects them from violence and political oppression. At least 169,000 people have applied for asylum at the U.S. southern border last year alone, and as other Western democracies have similarly strengthened their borders and authoritarian governments have expanded their powers, many have been sent to camps and camps. Increasingly, people are finding themselves stranded in desperate and unsafe situations, such as crowded boats.
During his presidency, Trump sharply reduced the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed into the country, but has promised even more drastic measures to curb both legal and illegal immigration if re-elected.
Harris vowed to continue executive measures enacted this year by President Biden that restrict how and where people can apply for asylum south of the border. These measures solidified Democrats’ rejection of the longstanding tradition of providing asylum, a change that had been unthinkable for them until recently.
“Regardless of who wins or loses in the White House, this fundamental consensus that we have to restrict asylum access will remain in the cards for some time to come,” said a Latino civilian and Unidos U.S. immigrant. said Chris Ramon, senior advisor in charge. A human rights group whose political wing supports Harris. “This will become the default policy position.”
Immigrants crossing the country’s southern border have a legal right to seek protection from persecution, under a system of treaties and U.S. law rooted in the failure of the United States and Europe to protect large numbers of Jews during the Holocaust. There is.
Much of the country’s asylum and refugee policies were developed during the Cold War, when the United States gave preferential treatment to people fleeing communism. Under the 1980 Refugee Act, which established the legal basis for this procedure, judges are required to judge whether a person fleeing persecution because of religion, race, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a “particular social group” Asylum can only be granted to those who are. After the drug wars escalated violence in Mexico and Central America in the 1980s and 1990s, the violence was fueled in part by U.S. demand for drugs and in part by gang members exiled from U.S. cities. , immigration lawyers called for expanding asylum eligibility to more people. , including victims of domestic violence and gang crime.
Some observers trace the demise of the U.S. asylum system to the Trump administration, which took an almost systematic approach to dismantling the system. Mr. Trump and his allies have placed greater burdens on asylum seekers to prove their claims. They issued new rules for immigration judges aimed at making it harder to win applications. They used memos and legal mechanisms to narrow down eligibility. In 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic raged, the government cited a little-known public health rule to turn away nearly all people seeking asylum at the southern border.
But some say the system is long overdue for reckoning.
Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the refugee system has been under pressure for generations, and the response from the White House and Congress has long been to limit access or make asylum seekers skeptical. He said it was to see. It often led to lack of funds.
“Insufficient resources create backlogs, and backlogs create the impression that the system is not working, and eventually the system becomes self-fulfilling,” Motomura said, adding that the refugee system is “in great need of reform.” added.
In recent decades, as both Democratic and Republican administrations have promised and failed to overhaul immigration laws, asylum has become the primary entry route for many immigrants.
Claims piled up in overcrowded and underfunded courts. A study by Philip G. Schrag, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, found that the sentencing process is “essentially broken,” with average wait times for hearings reaching four years. These long wait times come despite applicants having the right to work in the U.S., even though only 3% of pending refugee claims in 2024 were approved, according to the Cato Institute. Critics say this has given people an incentive to cross the border and turn themselves in. , a libertarian think tank.
Debate over the system intensified in 2011 under the Obama administration, when children fleeing poverty and gang violence in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras began crossing the border without parents, and in 2014, children fleeing poverty and gang violence began crossing the border without parents. The number of adults reached a peak of just over 68,500. Under Trump, that number has risen again, with a record 72,873 children traveling alone arrested in the first 11 months of 2019, creating a new humanitarian crisis.
Migrants arriving at the southern border reached record numbers in the early days of the Biden administration, extending delays as understaffed government agencies face additional strain. Many Americans saw this development as evidence that the process was flawed.
“The fact that irregular immigration reached such a level in the first few years has definitely created a perception that things are not being done in an orderly manner, and there is also an absolute reality to that. ” said former immigrant Tom Jawetz. He served as chief counsel for the Department of Homeland Security in the Biden administration.
Given the gridlock in Congress and the broader shift in American attitudes toward immigration, a restrictive approach to asylum may well persist for years to come. The majority want the government to focus on reducing the number of people entering the country. A small but growing minority, primarily Republicans and independents but some Democrats, are also increasingly concerned about immigration’s collective impact on crime, taxes, and national identity.
“Border asylum has become so politically toxic that any move to lift current restrictions or expand access at ports of entry would be a challenge,” said Stephanie Reutert, a former State Department official in the Biden administration and current director of the agency. It’s hard to even imagine how it moves.” in Mexican Security Initiatives from the University of Texas at Austin.
Some human rights and immigration lawyers and activists say they fear asylum will be completely abolished under a second term as President Trump. They argue that under Harris there would be more room for negotiation, a stronger commitment to humanitarian obligations and the expansion of other forms of legal entry, including temporary protected status. . Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, recently said that a Republican ticket would end these temporary protection programs completely.
Immigration lawyers and refugee scholars say tough measures alone will not be enough to stem the arrival of asylum seekers as global migration increases as a result of several trends, including climate change and human rights abuses in authoritarian states. He said that. They called for continued humanitarian assistance to migrants’ home countries to promote economic development and security and prevent people from choosing to migrate in the first place.
But overall, the scope of U.S. policy is likely to be narrow. Biden administration officials dismissed the criticism, pointing to the president’s actions as contributing to a significant drop in illegal crossings at the southern border. Immigrants must now enter the country through the government’s online app, CBP One. CBP One offers 1,450 slots per day and requires people to set a time to come to a port of entry and enter the country, or enter the country through a limited program that allows them to fly in. Country if there is a financial sponsor. Migrants apprehended at the border will also no longer be asked if they fear returning to their home country, a change that immigration activists argue is leading to the exclusion of people who may have legitimate asylum claims. There is.
Cecilia Muñoz, who headed the White House Domestic Policy Council and was in charge of immigration during the Obama administration, said the policy change came at a time when human smuggling networks were taking advantage of the asylum process. He said it was extremely important.
“Our asylum system was actually built in a different time than the one we live in,” she said. “The underlying principles are very important to preserve, but the mechanics are really outdated.”
