This Land is Your Land

Proposed US asylum policy too restrictive

As with most issues in American politics, immigration at the
U.S.-Mexico border has divided the nation. Debates over policy have continued,
and with the election of President Trump, the subject has taken a life of its
own. However, in examining the existing immigration system, asylum policy
should stand far above debates over illegal immigration and border security.
Its existence should serve as a beacon for those seeking asylum at our border.
As the strength of our asylum policy shrinks under the current administration,
it becomes increasingly important to address its necessity and why the U.S.
needs a sensible and humanitarian asylum policy.

Modern America  stands
proud as one of the wealthiest nations not only of our time, but in human
existence.  With nearly unparalleled
resources, it is our moral obligation to stand firm as a humanitarian haven. In
2018, an estimated 92,959 people claimed asylum at the southern border,
according to U.S. Customs and Border Protections. This number is unprecedented
not only because of its scale, but also due to the number of women and children
pleading for asylum, as reported by the USCBP. This situation has put the U.S.
at a moral crossroads, one demanding action the USCBP can’t handle. Acting
secretary of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, at a press conference near the
border, described migrants held in detention camps as having to “live with fear
and uncertainty for years at a time because the system is broken and
overwhelmed.” The Office of Inspector General’s Report on Rio Grande Valley
detention camps is especially chilling, describing how “most single adults had
not had a shower in CBP custody despite several being held for as long as a
month,” or how they’d found “spoiled and moldy food in kitchen refrigerators,
as well as food past its expiration date.” Regardless of one’s beliefs on
immigration policy, there is no way to justify the unmistakably inhumane way
detained migrants are housed.

Some may write off Central American refugees as ‘not our
problem.’ However, while the refugees seeking our help might not be ‘our
problem,’ we are theirs. Much of the drug consumption feeding the gang
activity  and destabilizing the region is
coming from the U.S. Approximately  90%
of imported cocaine makes its way from South America, through Central America
to Mexico, before entering the U.S. through ports of entry according to The
Washington Office of Latin America. The cartels responsible for these
shipments, both through overt sponsorship and unintentional assistance, have
shifted Central American power, allowing organized crime. Further, the
deportation of gang members back to Central America led directly to the growth
of gang activity in the region. In deporting undocumented gang members, we
guaranteed a rise in organized crime and the upheaval of many of Central
America’s peaceful residents, the ones now seeking asylum. All things considered,
it’s important that we recognize our collective responsibility in creating this
crisis. For the time being, without a short-term solution for American drug
use, it is imperative that the U.S. take in the refugees that its citizens have
played a part in creating.

The process through which we handle asylees  is becoming more controversial by the second,
with President Trump’s new policy that took effect July 23, preventing anyone
from claiming asylum status if they’ve passed through another country where
they could’ve claimed asylum on their way to the U.S. unless they can prove
they’re a victim of human trafficking. Beyond moral questionability, it has
unsurprisingly brought on legal action through a lawsuit filed by the ACLU,
which argues that the act stands in opposition to the Refugee Act of 1980,
which rules that the U.S. may not discriminate against refugees standing at a
point of entry according to their country of origin. The Trump administration
is adopting a policy of ‘faux’ discrimination, setting the bar of entry out of
reach for most refugees. Doing so intentionally excludes many potential asylees
and completely undermines the life-threatening and entirely valid reasons many
have had to flee their homes.

The remaining option for any potential refugees would be for them to have first sought asylum in any third party country they passed through on their way to the U.S. Beyond the fact that such an exemption excludes Mexican refugees, it also doesn’t do much service to Central Americans either. I agree with (what I hope) the White House is trying to do here. The U.S. should not be held solely responsible for the refugee crisis, and other countries in Latin America who are capable of assisting should play a major role. However, many of the same reasons causing migrants to flee their native countries remain prevalent in most nations along the
way. A Salvadoran immigrant would travel through Honduras and Guatemala before
reaching Mexico, both of whom lag just behind El Salvador in either homicide or
female homicide respectively. Regardless of these nations’ relative safety, the
Trump administration isn’t helping the situation by shutting itself out of the
process.  Leaving Latin American
countries to figure out the collective crisis alone is exactly what led to
Guatemala, amidst talks of its’ viability towards taking asylees, pulling out
of any discussions. The Trump administration’s actions don’t reflect a serious
take on this crisis, but rather a cold indifference towards the fate of those
suffering and begging for the same inalienable rights we take for granted.

   If by some miracle,
the White House were to go back on its policy, that of course leaves the
question of what the standards for asylum should be. Fortunately, the existing
Refugee Act of 1980 lays out straightforward standards and has a track record
of success. The resettlement of Vietnamese and Cambodian asylees indicates a
capability for success under an administration willing to take the proper steps
to help and then assimilate those seeking help. The act’s definition of asylee
as someone with a “well-founded fear of persecution” remains as a fair and
applicable criterion for those fleeing their native countries. This doesn’t
mean the criteria for claiming asylum hits a low, however. Under previous
administrations, only 20% of those who sought asylum were granted the status.
Seeking asylum demands proof of danger and a reason to constitute a lack of
willingness to return to one’s native country. These standards, combined with
the flexible cap of 50,000 refugees per year, would allow the US to make a
significant difference even without the effort of extending the cap. Unfortunately,
doing so would require an administration equipped with both compassion for
those who’ve come to our border seeking respite, as well as an understanding of
how to coordinate a global effort to handle the crisis, neither of which the
president seems to be interested in.

 For readers
interested in fighting against the Trump administration’s latest policy, I
would recommend donating to any of the civil rights groups currently filing a
lawsuit in response. These groups include the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, the
Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Locally,
you can donate to the Thanks-Giving Foundation for their efforts towards
housing asylum seekers. Additionally, voice your support for both humane
holding facilities and a reformed asylum policy to Congressman Van Taylor, or
your hometown representative.