ASYLUM SEEKERS AWAIT APPLICATION APPROVAL

You may have heard about the migrant caravan approaching our southern U.S. border. During a protest on Nov. 25, several hundred migrants charged the border at the San Ysidro (California) Land Port of Entry, just outside of Tijuana, Mexico. After climbing fencing, some of the migrants reportedly threw rocks and bottles at U.S. border patrol agents. In turn, agents fired tear gas at the migrants, not uncommon for crowd control efforts in the U.S., including in Portland.

A majority of the roughly 4,000 Central Americans gathered near San Ysidro are seeking asylum in the United States. Most originate from Honduras, where the caravan started in the northern city of San Pedro Sula. As word spread, the caravan grew from a few hundred people to thousands.

The situation in the home countries of these individuals isn’t the greatest. From the BBC country profile of Honduras: “Honduras has a long history of military rule, corruption, poverty and crime which have rendered it one of the least developed and most unstable countries in Central America.”

In response to the migrants traveling through Mexico to the border, Mexican citizens protested the migrants. The Guardian reported that hundreds of Tijuana residents turned out, waving Mexican flags, singing the national anthem, and chanting “Out! Out!” Citizens raised concerns about Mexican taxes possibly being spent on taking care of the group – a concern also shared by many Americans.

Asylum is no simple matter. According to the American Immigration Council, “asylum seekers coming to the U.S. must meet the international law definition of a refugee, which defines a refugee as a person who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her home country, and cannot obtain protection in that country, due to past persecution or a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future ‘on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ ”

Congress incorporated this definition into U.S. immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980, the Council notes. Ultimately, the U.S. has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees. “The Refugee Act established two paths to obtain refugee status – either from abroad as a resettled refugee or in the United States as an asylum seeker,” the Council said.

Poverty or economic hardship does not alone qualify as grounds for asylum, however. Asylum can be granted at a port of entry, which is what this caravan is pursuing at the border. Once an individual is on U.S. soil they may apply for asylum through either the affirmative- or the defensive-asylum process. The Council notes, “Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process.”

With the defensive-asylum process, asylum is applied “as a defense against removal from the U.S.,” the Council explains. But legal assistance for applicants is not assured. “Unlike the criminal court system, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) does not provide appointed counsel for individuals in immigration court, even if they are unable to retain an attorney on their own,” the Council said.

Either way, asylum seekers have to present their case proving he or she meets the definition of a refugee. Other factors bar individuals from asylum. For example, those who fail to apply within one year of entering the U.S. or who are found to pose a danger to the U.S. are barred.

There’s more: “Noncitizens who… present themselves to a U.S. official at a port of entry or near the border are subject to expedited removal, an accelerated process which authorizes (the Department of Homeland Security) to perform rapid deportations of certain individuals. To ensure that the United States does not violate international and domestic laws by returning individuals to countries where their life or liberty may be at risk, the credible fear and reasonable fear screening processes are available to asylum seekers in expedited removal processes.”

The application process is taking a while due to the high influx of applications, a delay that spurred migrants to protest on Sunday. U.S. officials are processing applications at a rate of 60-to-100 per day, but as the number of migrants rises, the delays will lengthen.

“We at the Advocate believe that, as a start, the U S. government should send more agents to process asylum applications. At the very least, these cases need to be reviewed in a timely fashion.”

As impatience and tensions rise with limited resources at the border, this could lead to a more aggressive approach or illegal actions by the migrants. The high level of security at the port of entry could lead migrants to seek illegal alternatives, putting their fate in the hands of criminals, likely gang members, who participate in drug and human smuggling, or even more distasteful activities like human trafficking.

Someone who enters the U.S. illegally still has a right to asylum application, meantime.

The maximum number of people allowed to enter the U.S. as refugees has been set by the president and Congress since 1980. President Trump and Congress have cut the amount to the lowest in recent history, from 110,000 in Fiscal Year 2017 (under the Obama administration) to 45,000 for FY 2018, with plans to reduce the amount to 30,000 for FY 2019. Smaller percentages of that total number are, in turn, divvied to countries all over the world.

Some argue it would be more beneficial to have a merit-based immigration policy. We do have policy set for individuals who meet the standard of a high school diploma and two years of work experience in a working field to immigrate. There also are working visas, which many individuals use along the Mexico-U.S. border.

It’s safe to say this is a complicated issue, with many aspects influencing one another. We at the Advocate believe that, as a start, the U S. government should send more agents to process asylum applications. At the very least, these cases need to be reviewed in a timely fashion.

Seeking asylum at a port of entry is legal. But charging the border, destroying property, and dismantling fencing is not the best way to “get your foot in the door.” These types of actions will make border agents go into self-defense mode.

However, agents must recognize these are people who are in great need of assistance, many of whom have traveled over 3,000 miles to seek a better life for themselves and their families. In viewing the situation on Sunday we should also be aware the actions of a few do not represent the whole.

Meanwhile, some migrants are seeking work with Mexico as applications are processed. Others have given up, and headed back home.

As a new Mexican federal administration comes into office on Saturday, there is word of talks between U.S. and Mexican leaders of creating a “Remain in Mexico” policy, as reported by The Washington Post last week.

However, there is cause for concern that any policy reached by both administrations will be legal. This is due to the requirement that either party can ensure all asylum seekers will be safe in Mexico.

We hope all parties can come to an agreement in a peaceful manner as this situation develops.