On July President Donald Trump’s administration promulgated a rule that upends the United States’ system of dealing with asylum-seekers and could dash the hopes of many nations. Under the new rules, no migrant can apply for asylum unless he or she has sought it in “at least one” other country along the way and been refused.
President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to keep immigrants out of the country but in the headlines. It followed the last-minute cancellation of a visit to the White House by Guatemala’s president, Jimmy Morales. He had been expected to conclude a “safe-third-country agreement”, which would have allowed the United States to deny asylum to anyone who had passed through Guatemala from other countries. The deal fell apart, perhaps because Guatemala’s constitutional court seemed likely to block it.
Under international and American law, people are entitled to asylum if they face persecution in their home countries because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion. In recent years, governments and judges have expanded their understanding of what constitutes persecution. A growing number of migrants have tried to use those rights to gain admission to the United States. The share asking for asylum after being apprehended without the right documents has risen from 5% to 40% over the past decade. Many do not qualify even under an elastic definition of persecution. Central Americans are more likely to be fleeing poverty. Relatives in the United States are a big draw.
A “large majority” of asylum claims at the border are rejected, says the Justice Department. Officials say that “meritless” claims worsen overcrowding in American detention centres and lengthen delays. Even genuine refugees should not be able to “shop” for asylum in their preferred country, they grumble.
The Trump administration’s response has been to narrow its interpretation of what asylum means and, at the same time, to transfer to other countries responsibility for caring for asylum-seekers and judging their cases. It has tightened the standards under which victims of gang violence or domestic abuse can claim they are suffering from “persecution”.
Andrew Selee of the Migration Policy Institute, says President Trump’s order makes migrants’ situation more uncertain than ever. The recent deal with Mexico now seems “obsolete”, a think-tank in Washington, DC. Instead of waiting in Mexico for a ruling from American authorities, migrants are now expected to stay in a country that cannot provide security to its own citizens. Those still determined to reach the United States may have to pay large sums to people-trafficking gangs and risk their lives in the desert.
Migrants’ hopes of a less perilous passage depend on whether American courts overturn the new policies. They have already struck down a rule that denied the right to claim asylum to people who cross the border without authorisation. The “remain in Mexico” policy faces a challenge. Mr Trump’s latest order is illegal because the United States has no safe-third-country agreements with any of the Latin American countries to which it might send asylum-seekers, contends Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, which has filed a lawsuit against the new rule.
