When I started The Asylumist over 11 years ago, I hoped to create a forum for discussing the U.S. asylum system. I didn’t know whether anyone would actually read the blog or whether I had the time and energy to maintain it (and truth be told, when I started, I really wasn’t even sure what a blog was). But here we are more than a decade later, still going.
During those years, much has changed with the asylum system: The Immigration Court backlog has increased from 243,000 to over 1.3 million; the Asylum Office backlog has grown from less than 32,000 to more than 386,000; we’ve seen the border “surge” (a couple times). the hostility of the Trump Administration, and the pandemic. The population of asylum seekers has changed as well. The Syrian civil war, the Arab Spring, increased instability in Venezuela, and a further breakdown of law and order in Central America all contributed to new waves of applicants seeking protection in the United States.
As I was observing and writing about asylum during these turbulent years, I was also thinking about turning some of my blog posts into a book. And for maybe the last two years, I’ve been actively working to get that done. Given my other obligations–family, job, blogging–I was not sure I would ever complete the work. But somehow, with the help and support of many people, the book is now done and available for sale. You can check it out here: The Asylumist: How to Seek Asylum in the United States and Keep Your Sanity.
President Joe Biden sent the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 to Congress on January 20, his first day in office. This bill provides a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented individuals, prioritizes family reunification, addresses the root causes of migration from Central America, modernizes border security, and aims to reduce the Immigration Court backlog.
But even if the U.S. Citizenship Act becomes law (which seems increasingly unlikely), it does not address the backlog of over 373,000 affirmative asylum cases–these are mostly individuals who entered the United States legally with visas, and who then applied for asylum. They include democracy and human rights advocates, journalists, religious minorities, and members of the LGBT community, among others. Many in the backlog are torture survivors and others who have suffered severe persecution. Since one case sometimes contains several family members, the total number of people waiting in the affirmative asylum backlog is something like 600,000 individuals. Many of those in the backlog have already been waiting four, five or even six years for an interview. These individuals represent a “Hidden Asylum Crisis” because their suffering is invisible to the general public and has thus far been ignored by lawmakers.(more…)
The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021 is finally here. It was unveiled last week by Senator Bob Menendez and Representative Linda Sanchez. The bill is very ambitious in scope, and aims to legalize about 11 million people, including “undocumented” immigrants, Dreamers, and people with Temporary Protected Status.
The odds-makers in the media seem to give the bill little chance of passing through the Senate, which requires at least ten Republicans to join with all the Democrats and Independents in order to overcome a filibuster. Some Senators (notably Lindsey Graham) have signaled a potential willingness to support a smaller bill–maybe one that would legalize Dreamers (also known as beneficiaries of DACA). This dilemma–which proponents of immigration reform have faced for decades–is nothing new: Go big and have more trouble passing a bill, or go small and help fewer people. We will have to see how things go, and certainly immigrant advocates need to be lobbying for a more comprehensive bill.
The bill itself is over 350 pages long and covers many different aspects of immigration. In this post, I will focus on a few points that directly affect asylum seekers. You can find basic summaries of the entire bill at Vox and Wikipedia, and a more comprehensive summary from blogger extraordinaire Greg Siskind. Here, though, we’ll stick to discussing only those provisions that relate most directly to asylum seekers. (more…)
This post is by David J. Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. Below is a statement he submitted to the House of Representatives about a new bill that is currently under consideration, the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act. The bill would make it more difficult for certain aliens to seek asylum in the United States (though in a nod to Christian conservatives, the bill would also make it easier to gain asylum for people fleeing “home school persecution”).
David J. Bier
The Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act (H.R. 391) would undermine the individual rights of people fleeing persecution and violence to seek asylum in the United States. The bill would obliterate the current asylum standards for people seeking asylum at the border, and now require such asylum seekers to prove their claims to an impossible degree immediately upon their arrival at the border—without access to the documents or witnesses that they would need to do so. The government would then promptly deport without a hearing before an immigration judge those who fail this unattainable requirement, possibly to endure violence or persecution.
The authors claim that this radical change is necessary due to an unprecedented surge of asylum applicants. In the 1990s, however, a similar surge of asylum seekers arrived in the United States, and Congress adopted much less severe reforms than those proposed in this bill. Even assuming that the applicants are submitting asylum applications for the sole purpose of gaining entrance to the United States, the bill does nothing to address the underlying cause of the problem: the lack of a legal alternative to migrate. As long as legal immigration remains impossible for lesser-skilled workers and their family members, unauthorized immigration of various kinds will continue to present a challenge.
Asylum rule change will result in denials of legitimate claims
Current law requires that asylum seekers at the border assert a “credible fear” of persecution. Asylum officers determine credibility based on whether there is a “significant possibility” that, if they allow the person to apply, an immigration judge would find that the fear is “well-founded,” a higher standard of proof. The credible fear interview screens out only the claims that obviously have “no possibility, or only a minimal or mere possibility, of success,” as U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) puts it. If the USCIS asylum officer rejects the claim as not credible, the applicant may ask an immigration judge to review the determination the next day but is not granted a full hearing. Customs and Border Protection removes those who fail to assert or fail to articulate a credible fear.
H.R. 391 would impose a much higher standard simply to apply for asylum in the United States. In addition to demonstrating that they had significant possibility of successfully proving their claim to an immigration judge, it would require applicants to prove that it is “more probable than not” that their claims are true—a preponderance of the evidence standard. This standard eviscerates the lower bar that Congress established. The committee simply cannot expect that asylum seekers who may have had to sneak out of their country of origin in the dead of night or swim across rivers to escape persecution will have sufficient evidence the moment they arrive in the United States to meet this burden.
In 2016, a group of Syrian Christians who traveled thousands of miles across multiple continents and then up through Mexico to get to the United States arrived at the border to apply for asylum. Thankfully, they met the credible fear standard and were not deported, which enabled them to hire an attorney to help them lay out their claim, but this new standard could endanger anyone who follows their path. An inability to provide sufficient evidence of their religion, nationality, residence, or fear would result in deportation immediately after presenting themselves at the border.
The authors imply that requiring them to prove their statements are true is not the same as requiring them to prove their entire asylum case, but this is a distinction without a difference. Asylum applicants must state a “credible fear” of persecution. Those statements would then be subject to the much more stringent standard. Of course the government should demand the truth from all applicants, but this is a question of the standard by which asylum officers should use to weed truth from falsehood. It is virtually impossible that, by words alone, asylum seekers could prove that it is “more probable than not” that their statements are true.
The committee should consider this fact: in 2016, immigration judges reversed nearly 30 percent of all denials of credible fear that came to them on appeal. This means that even under the current law, asylum officers make errors that would reject people with credible claims of persecution. If Congress requires an even greater burden, many more such errors will occur, but faced with the higher evidentiary requirement, immigration judges will have little choice but to ratify them.
Here is another sign that the truth is not enough: asylum applicants with attorneys were half as likely to have their asylum denied by immigration judges in 2016 as those without attorneys. Indeed, 90 percent of all applicants without counsel lose their case, while a majority with counsel win theirs. This demonstrates that people need more than just honesty—they also need to understand what evidence is relevant to their case and need help to gather documents, witnesses, and other evidence to support their claim.
For these reasons, Congress never intended the credible fear interview as a rigorous adversarial process because it wanted to give people who could credibly articulate a fear of persecution an opportunity to apply. It knew that while some people without legitimate claims would be able to apply, the lower standard of proof would protect vulnerable people from exclusion. As Senator Alan Simpson, the sponsor of the 1996 bill that created the credible fear process, said, “it is a significantly lesser fear standard than we use for any other provision.” Indeed, during the debate over the compromise version of the bill, proponents of the legislation touted that the fact that they had dropped “the more probable than not” language in the original version.
Asylum surge is not unprecedented
People can either apply for asylum “affirmatively” to USCIS on their own or they can apply “defensively” after they come into the custody of the U.S. government somehow, such as at the border or airport, to an immigration judge, which would include the credible fear process. If USCIS denies an “affirmative” applicant who is in the country illegally, the government places them in removal proceedings before an immigration judge where they can present their claim again.
Reviewing the data on asylum claims, two facts become clear: total asylum claims peaked in the 1990s, and a substantial majority of claims are affirmative—that is, done voluntarily, not through the credible fear process or through removal proceedings. Although credible fear claims—a process that was first created in 1997—have increased dramatically, the overall number of asylum claims has still not reached the highs of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, the immigration courts have not published the number of cases that they received before 1996, but as Figure 1 shows, the United States has experienced similar surges of asylum seekers to 2016.
It is noteworthy that in the midst of the surge in the 1990s, Congress did not adopt the draconian approach that this bill would require. Rather, it created the credible fear process that the bill would essentially eliminate. The authors of the legislation, however, argue that the Obama administration turned the credible fear process into a rubber stamp, allowing applicants to enter regardless of the credibility of their claims. But again a look at the numbers undermines this narrative. As Figure 2 highlights, the Obama administration denied an average of about 25 percent of all asylum seekers from 2009 to 2016.
Despite fluctuations of up to 35 percentage points during this time, there is simply no relationship at all between the rate of approval and the number of claims being made. Factors other than the approval rate must be driving the number of applications. Some of these claims are undoubtedly invalid or even fraudulent, but given that a majority of claims by individuals with representation in immigration court win their asylum claims, it is obvious that the credible fear process has protected many people from deportation to persecution abroad.
If fraudulent claims are a concern, Congress can best address it in the same way that it has successfully addressed other aspects of illegal immigration from Mexico: through an expansion of legal immigration. During the 1950s and again recently in the 2000s, Congress expanded the availability of low-skilled guest worker visas, which led to a great reduction in the rate of illegal immigration. Figure 3 presents the number of guest workers entering each year and the number of people each border agent apprehended each year—the best available measure of illegal immigration. It shows that the period of high illegal immigration occurred almost exclusively during the period of restrictive immigration.
Most guest workers today are Mexicans. This is largely due to the fact that the current guest worker programs are limited to seasonal temporary jobs and Mexico is closer to the United States, which makes trips to and from the United States easier. By comparison, most asylum seekers are from Central America. Assuming that a significant portion of these asylum seekers are either reuniting with illegal residents already in the United States or are seeking illegal residence themselves, these seasonal programs are unavailable to them.
Congress should create a temporary work visa program for low-skilled workers in year-round jobs, similar to the H-1B visa for high-skilled workers. This would cut down on asylum fraud and illegal immigration without the downsides that this bill presents.
We think of spring in the Northern hemisphere as a time of rebirth and renewal. But in the Mediterranean, for refugees attempting to reach Europe by sea, it is a time of dying.
Deporting children protects them. Vaccines cause Autism. Ketchup is a vegetable.
Last month, over 800 people died when an overcrowded boat sank en router from Libya to Southern Europe. That brings the number of migrant deaths at sea during this season to 1,780 people, as compared to 96 people during the same period last year.
By contrast, deaths at the U.S. border are down from previous years. The Associated Press reports that, “The number of people who died trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border has dropped to the lowest level in 15 years as more immigrants turned themselves in to authorities in Texas and fewer took their chances with the dangerous trek across the Arizona desert.” In FY 2014, the government recorded 307 deaths at the border. Although this is significantly lower than what we are seeing in Europe, hundreds of people are still dying each year on their journeys to the United States (and of course this figure does not include people who die on the route to the U.S. before they reach our border).
In many cases, the migrants coming to Europe and the United States are fleeing severe violence in their home countries. They are desperate people seeking safety and a better life in the West. And although in many ways the U.S. and Europe are hostile to asylum seekers, we do provide strong “pull factors” that encourage people to make the journey. We offer such people asylum.
So it’s fair to ask: Does the very fact that we offer asylum provide an incentive for people to risk their lives–and sometimes die–to reach our country?
A recent bill proposed in Congress and passed by the House Judiciary Committee seems to answer this question in the affirmative. The bill, called the Protection of Children Act of 2015, would “protect” unaccompanied minors who come to the U.S. by sending them home more expeditiously. One of the bill’s sponsors, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) explained the rationale for this new legislation:
The Obama Administration’s immigration policies have given confidence to parents who are in the U.S. illegally that they can stay and have encouraged them to bring their children, who are still in Central America and beyond, to the United States unlawfully. These children, often assisted by smugglers, face many dangerous situations as they travel through Mexico and then walk miles across a hostile border environment. We need to take action to stop these children from risking their lives to come to the United States unaccompanied and unlawfully. The Protection of Children Act makes common sense changes to our laws to ensure minors who travel to the U.S. alone are returned home safely and quickly.
While the bill will not, in fact, protect any children (rather, it will harm them), the Protection of Children Act is–at least in part–an effort to reduce the incentive for people to come to the U.S. for asylum and thus an effort to reduce the number of people who die attempting to reach our country.
But still, the question remains: Do our asylum laws encourage people to come illegally to the United States and risk their lives in the process? Is our generosity killing people?
One way to look at the question is to explore the motivation for asylum seekers’ coming to the U.S. Which is more important, the “push” of danger in the home country or the “pull” of asylum in the United States? If the “pull” is more important, we would expect that people from similar countries would come to the U.S. in similar numbers, regardless of violence levels in those countries. So for example, we would expect to see people coming to the U.S. in similar numbers from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua (all poor Central American countries). A review of the data, however, indicates that this is not the case. Many more people come to the U.S. from the more violent countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) than from the less violent one (Nicaragua) (I have written more about this here).
Some of the disparity may be because there are more people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in the U.S. than there are people from Nicaragua, and so perhaps migrants are not fleeing violence, but instead are coming here for family unity. There is no doubt that this is part of the equation. However, according to the Pew Foundation, there are roughly 408,261 Nicaraguans in the U.S. By comparison, there are 774,866 Hondurans, 1,265,400 Guatemalans, and 1,969,495 Salvadorans in the United States. I could not find recent data on the number of Nicaraguans coming to the U.S., but for December 2014, Nicaragua was not even in the top 10 sending countries for asylum seekers. In that month, 333 people filed for asylum from Honduras, 495 from El Salvador, and 546 from Guatemala. One hundred and fifty four people filed for asylum from India, which is # 10 on the list, so we know that even fewer people sought asylum from Nicaragua. Given the significant number of Nicaraguans living in the U.S., if family unity was the main “pull” factor, we would expect greater numbers of migrants from Nicaragua.
All this leads to the conclusion that violent conditions in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras are “pushing” people to come to the United States. And, by the way, this squares with anecdotal evidence from the asylum seekers themselves and the lawyers (like me) who represent them.
So what does it all mean? If people are coming here mainly due to “push” factors (violence) and not “pull” factors (asylum), then making it more difficult for them to claim asylum in the U.S. (or Europe) is unlikely to dissuade them from making the journey.
Most asylum seekers, like most people, are rational and respond to their environment in rationale ways. If conditions are violent and they fear for their lives, people will flee. If there is somewhere safe for them to go, they will go. The Protection of Children Act does nothing to protect such people. It merely shifts the problem somewhere else. To help reduce the number of asylum seeker deaths, the United States and Europe need to do more to address the root causes of violence. Making life even more difficult for those fleeing harm will only make a bad situation worse.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill that would grant asylum to families of homeschoolers who are persecuted by their governments. The bill, sponsored by Congressman Jason Chaffetz, would also make it more difficult for others fleeing violence to obtain asylum in the U.S. by (among other things) raising the bar for credible fear interviews and blocking all government funding for child refugees who need lawyers. Congressman Louis Gutiérrez criticized the bill’s restrictions: “Shouldn’t children who are fleeing child abuse and violence be afforded the same protection as a child who is denied homeschooling?”
While I personally find this bill distasteful, it seems to me that it falls within the grand tradition of asylum. One of the unique characteristics of asylum is that, by granting asylum to an individual, we implicitly condemn the actions of his home country. You can’t have asylum without a bad guy—a persecutor. When, for example, we grant asylum to a member of a religious minority from China, we send a message that the Chinese government persecutes its own people based on religion. Thus, asylum is inherently political: We make a political statement about another country, and at the same time, we demonstrate our own values.
Gutierrez to Chaffetz: “You’re like a homeschooler on a school day – No class.”
Historically, the political nature of asylum has played an important role in the development of our law. For example, the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees (which we helped create and upon which our current law is based) limited asylum to the five protected categories: Race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. This definition had the effect (probably intended) of helping people fleeing from persecution in the Soviet Union (because they generally faced a type of persecution that fit within a protected category) without offering much to people fleeing from persecution in the West (because such people generally faced “persecution” in the form of economic harm or crime, which does not qualify them for refugee status).
What’s more, we’ve never been particularly subtle about the political nature of asylum. During the Cold War, we gave asylum to “trophy refugees,” high-profile people who defected from the Soviet Block to the West. Such refugees helped demonstrate Western moral superiority over the Communists, and so we were happy to take them.
More recently—in the mid-1990s—Congress amended the definition of refugee to include victims of forced family planning. This amendment was a direct refutation of China’s one-child policy. And it was an expression of our country’s (or at least Congress’s) opposition to abortion.
Except for the forced-family-planning amendment, Congress has never modified the definition of refugee. But courts—prompted by creative lawyers—have expanded the definition to include gays and lesbians, victims of female genital mutilation, and people facing domestic violence, among others. While these changes have helped many people, they were not driven by a desire to make a political statement about other countries. And certainly they are not based on our collective desire—as expressed by Congress—to send a message condemning behavior that offends us. Rather, they are based on the idea that people fleeing persecution should be treated equally.
Most lawyers—including yours truly—are big fans of equality. If the state offers a benefit to Joe (be it a tax break, the right to marry, a lenient criminal sentence, or asylum), it should offer the same benefit to Mary. My belief in equal treatment for asylum seekers leads me to oppose special preferences for certain groups, like victims of forced family planning and people fleeing Cuba. In my opinion, such people do not need special laws to protect them. They can request asylum like everyone else. In short, I believe that asylum should not be about sending a political message; it should be about protecting people from harm. If a person demonstrates that she faces harm, she should receive asylum.
The problem is that democracy and equality don’t always go together. The Equal Protection clause protects Americans from the tyranny of the majority, but equal protection does not apply in the context of asylum. Congress could, for example, offer asylum only to people from certain regions or to people of certain religions.
Perhaps we can call it the Realpolitik theory of asylum versus the Equality theory. The Homeschoolers’ asylum bill falls on the Realpolitik side, in that it is designed to further our country’s political agenda by offering a humanitarian benefit to a group that we deem worthy of protection.
Should it become law, the bill would also represent a democratic development of asylum law, something we have not seen in almost 20 years. Wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the other developments in the law–protecting gays and lesbians, for example–had been accomplished democratically instead of by lawyers pushing the boundaries of asylum in court?
To be sure, I don’t like this bill. I don’t like how it restricts most asylum seekers (especially children) while offering special benefits to people who I think should apply for asylum like everyone else. But my opinion is clearly not the point. The Homeschoolers’ bill falls within the democratic, Realpolitik tradition of asylum. It helps a group of individuals who “We the People” view as deserving of protection and it places restrictions on another group that is deemed less deserving. It also sends a message about American values, for better and for worse.
Lately, I’ve been worrying that asylum might become a victim of its own success. Thanks to lawyers pushing the law, the number and categories of people eligible for asylum has increased pretty dramatically: Victims of FGM and domestic violence, LGBT individuals, certain victims of crimes. This is a good thing, as many lives have been saved. But it has started to attract the attention of immigrant restrictionists, who think the asylum system is too generous. Could the tide be shifting? Might we be on the verge of a backlash?
The Romans aren’t all that popular this time of year.
There’s precedent for such fear dating back to antiquity. When the Roman Empire conquered Greece, the various city-states had a well-developed system of temple asylum. In short, if you were a slave fleeing abuse, you could go for protection to a Greek temple. Over time, the types of people who could claim protection in Greek temples expanded, so that basically anyone, including rebels and common criminals, could find refuge in a temple. The law-and-order Romans would have none of it. In 14 AD, Emperor Tiberius ordered the temples to produce evidence of their right to offer asylum. Most temples could not do so, and so Tiberius’s little bureaucratic maneuver essentially ended asylum in the Greek city-states. So much for the history lesson.
Late last month, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) announced that they would be holding hearings on asylum and credible fear “abuse” by people arriving in the U.S. via Mexico. The press announcement does not sound promising:
It’s outrageous that members of Mexican drug cartels and others involved in illicit activity are so easily able to exploit our asylum laws and live in the U.S. virtually undetected. Our asylum laws are in place to help individuals who are facing truly serious persecution in their countries. However, dangerous criminals are gaming the system by claiming they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution when often they’ve been the perpetrators of violence themselves. Their claims almost always get rubberstamped by the Obama Administration and once these individuals are in the U.S., the illegal activity doesn’t stop.
Unfortunately, it appears the Obama Administration is compromising our national security and the safety of our communities for its political agenda. The House Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearing soon to closely examine this egregious abuse to see what can be done to put an end to it.
Over the last couple months, I’ve written pretty extensively about the influx of asylum seekers at the border, and there certainly seem to be issues that require attention. That’s why it’s disappointing to see such an overtly political description of the upcoming hearings. Hopefully, the hearings themselves will be more constructive (yes, for some reason, I am feeling unusually optimistic – maybe its The Season).
Not that anyone has asked, but I thought I would raise some issues that the Committee might explore:
– We need accurate statistics about who is seeking asylum and why: It is very difficult to know who seeks asylum, who receives it, who receives other relief, and who is denied. One problem is that the two agencies that track asylum cases–DOJ and DHS–use different metrics for calculating their numbers. Another problem is that there are no stats available on people who receive Withholding of Removal and Torture Convention relief (two benefits that are similar, though inferior, to asylum). Congress should mandate better record keeping on asylum cases: Where do asylum seekers come from? What is the basis for their grants or denials? How many are detained? How many leave of their own volition after receiving a denial? How many are deported? How many cases are re-opened for fraud or due to criminal convictions? Such information will allow us to improve our policy-making and will hopefully lead to a better and more secure system.
– We need to make some decisions about how to treat asylum applicants at the borders: There has been a significant increase in asylum applicants arriving at our Southern border. Currently, most are detained and–if they pass a credible fear interview–they are released with a date to return to Immigration Court. I have not seen specific examples of individuals who have entered the U.S. in this manner and then committed bad acts. But given the number of arrivals, the possibility for this to happen seems pretty high. So do we detain these asylum seekers until their cases are heard? Such an approach makes it much more difficult for them to prepare their asylum cases. It is also very expensive. Should each person be fitted with an ankle bracelet or some other tracking device? If we had more accurate data about asylum seekers, perhaps we could better answer these questions.
– We must decide how to treat people fleeing persecution where that persecution is not based on a protected ground: Many people arriving at the Southern border face real harm from gangs, cartels, and criminals. Many others face serious harm due to sexual violence. Often, such people do not fall neatly into one of the five protected categories. Most will not qualify for lesser forms of relief, such as the Convention Against Torture. So what to do with them? Of course, we could simply deport them as we are not obligated by our international agreements to protect them. But sending innocent people to their deaths seems not in keeping with our national values (or any other notion of morality). Could something be done for such people without creating an incentive for everyone South of the border to come to the United States?
– We need to plan ahead to deal with a potentially large refugee flow from Mexico: For years, we’ve been hearing discussion about the possibility of large refugee flows from Mexico due to the violence there. If this happens, our current asylum system will likely not handle the volume. Perhaps we need a contingency plan for how to deal with such refugees. Faced with refugee crises, other countries have created temporary camps for people, where they can stay until it is safe to return (though often that takes decades or longer, and then there is no where to return to). Maybe such a model would be appropriate if the situation in Mexico deteriorates further. Or maybe some type of TPS would be more appropriate. In any case, it seems to me that we can start thinking about this now, so that we are more prepared in case of a humanitarian disaster.
There is obviously more to say about these topics, but–since it is the season of miracles–I continue to hope that the Judiciary Committee will address these and other important issues related to our asylum system.
At the heart of the Republicans’ intransigence on the budget and the debt ceiling, and their willingness to shut our government down in order to (sort-of) block Obamacare, lies an utter contempt for America’s government and its employees. A willingness to disrespect, blame, and penalize government “bureaucrats” for everything and anything. They love to quote President Reagan‘s old trope: “Government is the problem.” Well, I have a proposal for you–if you hate government so much, why not try living in a country without one?
As an asylum attorney, many of the people I represent come from countries without decent governments. They come to America because in their countries, there is no security, no jobs, no justice. Let me tell you about some of my clients.
One is a woman from Afghanistan who was pushed into an engagement by her family and her fiance’s family. The woman was highly educated and accomplished. In her job, she helped hundreds of people and she met with many high-level officials, including a U.S. Secretary of State. Her fiance threatened to kill her if she continued her work or education. Did her government help her? No, in Afghanistan, women have no rights when it comes to family matters. She had to come to our government for help, and she received asylum.
I represented a policeman from Nepal who had worked and fought against Maoist guerrillas. Although many outside observers (including the U.S. government) consider the Maoists a terrorist group, they managed to enter politics and eventually take power in Nepal. The result was that when the guerrillas attempted to kill my client, there was no one to protect him. He fled the country and received refuge here.
Another client was a man from El Salvador whose relatives were murdered by gang members. The Salvadoran government was unable to control the gang, and so the man fled to the U.S., where he received protection.
I’ve represented an old lady from Iraq. A Shi’ite militia kidnapped her son. There was no one to protect the family, so she paid a ransom to have the son released. After that, the militia continued to extort and threaten her until she came to the U.S. and received asylum.
The list goes on and on, and it’s not just an absence of government; it’s bad government: A Falun Gong practitioner who was beaten by Chinese officials; a Somali man, shot in the leg by militiamen; an Ethiopian political activist beaten and tortured by police; a political activist from Zimbabwe who was raped by police after she attended a political rally; a Rwandan Tutsi woman who saw her family members murdered in front of her; a Syrian doctor held in a torture prison; a Russian political activist stripped of his citizenship and threatened; a gay man from Egypt beaten by the police; a lesbian from Serbia who was gang raped. And on and on and on. And that’s not counting all the corruption and discrimination that are endemic in most governments around the world, but which would not form the basis for an asylum claim.
From my point of view, there is great value in an honest (or at least mostly honest) bureaucracy. To disrespect our government workers, to punish them and hold them hostage to a political agenda, and to crush their morale is not just a disgrace. It demonstrates a shocking naivete about how the world works, and about how governments and economies work. Such naivete might be excusable in a college freshman enchanted by Ayn Rand, but it is criminally negligent in an elected official.
Since they don’t have the votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act–a law that has been properly voted on and survived a Supreme Court challenge, not to mention the re-election of President Obama–House Republicans have just shut the government down. They couldn’t do that to the United States and its employees unless they had utter contempt for those employees. That attitude moves our country in the direction of places without a good government; places like Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
So, House Republicans, I invite you to visit countries where government really is the problem. Or speak to my clients, who understand all too well what that means. Maybe if you were not so ignorant, you would be a bit more respectful of the people who keep our country great, our government employees.
As the new Immigration Bill heads from the committee to the full Senate, NPR turned for comment to a brilliant and seasoned asylum lawyer. Unfortunately, he wasn’t available, so they called me.
NPR listeners hear me explain the finer points of asylum law.
Yes, your humble blogger debuted earlier this week on the NPR show Talk of the Nation. This was my first ever appearance on radio (though sometime in the mid-1980s, I did appear on a local TV talk show as an example of a kid who did not kill himself as a result of Dungeons & Dragons).
While I am used to talking to judges, appearing on radio before a live audience is quite terrifying. I assumed that I would fall into the fetal position and cry for my mommy. But it was not to be. In fact, I thought the interview went pretty well (you can hear it or read the transcript here).
The title of the show was “Who Gets Asylum, Who Doesn’t and How that May Change.” I was the only guest to appear in-studio, with host Ari Shapiro. Other guests were Dan Stein of the restrictionist group FAIR (which wits on the Left have dubbed “un-FAIR” – we need better wits) and NPR Congressional Correspondent David Welna.
In the space of about 30 minutes, I managed to insult the governments of Pakistan, China, Eritrea, Cuba, Indonesia, Serbia, and possibly Mexico. I also (hopefully) made a decent argument for why the one-year asylum bar should be eliminated (the current version of the Bill would eliminate the bar). I tried to give many examples of asylum seekers who had been persecuted and who were worthy of protection (hence the need to insult numerous governments). And I hopefully made the case for preserving and strengthening the asylum system.
Although I enjoyed my experience at NPR, I can’t say I am particularly optimistic that the current Bill will make it into law. The most important aspects of the Bill are not related to asylum seekers, but the main provision related to asylum–elimination of the one year filing deadline–is important to many people, and thousands of legitimate refugees would benefit if the bar were removed.
We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks. At least one senator predicts that the Bill will pass the Senate with 70 votes prior to July 4th. I hope he is right, but even if he is, the Bill still has to get through the Republican-controlled House. To me, it seems like an up-hill battle. But it is definitely a battle worth fighting.
Now that Comprehensive Immigration Reform is finally on the table, I thought I would discuss my own “wish list” for reforming the asylum and humanitarian relief system. Human Rights First is in the forefront of the effort to include asylum reform in any CIR package, and they–along with scores of other organizations and law professors–have submitted recommendations to Congress and the President. Below is my own take on asylum reform, including some thoughts on Withholding of Removal and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture:
– One Year Filing Deadline: The current law requires aliens to file for asylum within one year of their arrival in the United States. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) changed circumstances (i.e., it was safe to return home when the alien arrived here, but something changed, and it is no longer safe to return home); and (2) extraordinary circumstances (i.e., something prevented the alien from filing for asylum–maybe she was a child and did not have the capacity to file, or maybe she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder). Aliens who cannot demonstrate an exception to the rule will be denied asylum if they file more than one year after they arrive in the U.S.
Also on my wish list: My Little Pony (with brush).
Supposedly the original purpose of the one-year rule was to prevent fraud. However, the real-life effect of the rule is to block legitimate refugees from obtaining asylum. One group in particular that has been negatively affected are LGBT asylum seekers. In many cases such people are not “out” when they arrive in the U.S., and it takes them time–often more than one year–to understand their sexual orientation and then decide to seek asylum. Other people harmed by the one-year rule include those who are emotionally unable to prepare their cases due to the severe traumas they suffered, people who do not know about the one-year requirement, and people who wait to seek asylum in the hope that country conditions back home will improve.
Having litigated dozens of cases where the one-year rule was a factor, I don’t see how it ever prevented fraud. It is an arbitrary rule, which does nothing except block legitimate asylum seekers from obtaining relief. My number one hope for asylum reform is that the one-year rule will be eliminated.
– Asylum Clock: I have written previously about the Asylum Clock. When an alien files for asylum, DHS starts a “clock.” When the clock reaches 150 days, the applicant can file for a work permit. If the applicant does anything to delay her case, the clock stops. Theoretically, when the delay ends, the clock should re-start. But thanks to ambiguous rules governing the Asylum Clock, that does not always happen.
Although I really can’t stand the Asylum Clock, I suppose I recognize that it is a necessary evil. Prior to the clock, it was common for aliens to file frivolous asylum applications in order to obtain a work permit. In those days, cases took years to adjudicate, so anyone claiming asylum could work lawfully in the U.S. for years before their case was denied. The Asylum Clock, combined with the fact that asylum cases–at least at the Asylum Offices–are usually decided in a matter of months, have greatly reduced frivolous applications. Although it has helped to reduce fraud, the Asylum Clock is incredibly annoying.
The bottom line for me is that the presumption of the Asylum Clock should be in favor of keeping the clock moving. If an Asylum Officer or an Immigration Judge finds that the alien is purposefully delaying his case or that the case is frivolous, they should stop the clock. But the clock should not be stopped for legitimate delays (For example, sometimes an attorney must refuse an appointment date due to a conflict. When this happens, the clock stops. But why should the alien be penalized because the attorney is unavailable on a particular date?). My “wish” here is that the Asylum Clock rules will be re-written to make it easier and faster for asylum seekers to get their work permits.
– Withholding of Removal and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”): There are two distinct categories of people who receive Withholding or CAT instead of asylum. One group are people who are ineligible for asylum because they are criminals or human rights abusers. The other group are people who missed the one-year filing deadline for asylum (and receive Withholding) and people who face torture in their countries, but not on account of one of the protected grounds for asylum (they receive CAT). Aliens who receive Withholding or CAT receive a work permit, which must be renewed every year, but they can never become residents. Unlike asylees, they cannot petition to bring immediate family members to the U.S. and if they leave the U.S., they cannot return. Finally, because few people have these statuses, people with CAT or Withholding often have trouble obtaining a driver’s license and convincing employers that they are lawfully present in the United States.
Frankly, I am not in favor of giving more benefits to criminals or human rights abusers who receive Withholding or CAT. Some immigration rights advocates would disagree with this (and there are legitimate reasons to disagree), but I feel that there should be consequences for our bad actions, and people who do not qualify for asylum due to their own bad conduct should suffer those consequences.
On the other hand, it is unfair to penalize people who receive Withholding or CAT because they missed a filing deadline, or because they face torture for some reason other than race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion. My “wish” here is that such people receive some or all of the benefits normally given to asylum seekers. These people have done nothing wrong, and often they have suffered serious abuse in their homelands.
Well, that’s enough for now. I have a few more wishes, but I will cover those in a future post.
The Amerasian Homecoming Act, which passed into law in December 1987 and went into effect a few months later, began with a photojournalist, a homeless boy in Vietnam, and four high school students in Long Island, New York. Twenty five years later, almost 100,000 people have immigrated from Vietnam to the U.S. as a result of the AHA.
First, a bit of background. One of the great tragedies of the Vietnam War is the story of the Amerasians–children of U.S. servicemen and Vietnamese women. There are tens of thousands of such children. In Vietnam, they were known as “children of the dust” because they were considered as insignificant as specks of dust, and many (if not most) suffered discrimination, abuse, poverty, and homelessness. Although the fathers of these children were United States citizens, the children did not qualify to immigrate to the U.S. The situation was complicated by the absence of diplomatic relations between the government of the United States and the government of Vietnam. Ten years after the war, the situationo for the Amerasians seemed hopeless. A 2009 article from Smithsonian Magazine describes what happened next:
In October 1985, Newsday photographer Audrey Tiernan, age 30, on assignment in Ho Chi Minh City, felt a tug on her pant leg. “I thought it was a dog or a cat,” she recalled. “I looked down and there was [Le Van] Minh. It broke my heart.” Minh, with long lashes, hazel eyes, a few freckles and a handsome Caucasian face, moved like a crab on all four limbs, likely the result of polio. Minh’s mother had thrown him out of the house at the age of 10, and at the end of each day his friend, Thi, would carry the stricken boy on his back to an alleyway where they slept. On that day in 1985, Minh looked up at Tiernan with a hint of a wistful smile and held out a flower he had fashioned from the aluminum wrapper in a pack of cigarettes. The photograph Tiernan snapped of him was printed in newspapers around the world. The next year, four students from Huntington High School in Long Island saw the picture and decided to do something. They collected 27,000 signatures on a petition to bring Minh to the United States for medical attention.They asked Tiernan and their congressman, Robert Mrazek, for help.
Mrazek began making phone calls and writing letters. Several months later, in May 1987, he flew to Ho Chi Minh City. Mrazek had found a senior Vietnamese official who thought that helping Minh might lead to improved relations with the United States, and the congressman had persuaded a majority of his colleagues in the House of Representatives to press for help with Minh’s visa.
Minh came to the U.S., where he still lives. but once he got to Vietnam, the Congressman realized that many thousands of Amerasian children were living in Vietnam, often in terrible conditions. Congressman Mrazek resolved to help these children. The result was the Amerasian Homecoming Act, which went into effect in early 1988.
The AHA allowed Amerasians to come to the United States as lawful permanent residents. They are not considered refugees, but they do receive benefits (such as financial assistance and housing) normally reserved for refugees. In an important way, the law was quite succcesful–as a result of the AHA, approximately 25,000 Amerasians and about 70,000 of their family members immigrated to the United States.
However, the law was not a success by all measures. For one thing, not all Amerasians in Vietnam learned about the AHA, and so many people who might have qualified to leave Vietnam were unable to do so.
Another problem was fraud. One type of fraud involved people who claimed to be Amerasian, but who were not (there was no easy way to tell who was an Amerasian, and many decisions were made based on the person’s physical appearance). However, the more pervasive problem of fraud involved “fake families.” These were people who attached themselves to the Amerasian immigrants’ cases in order to come with them to the U.S. In many cases, the Amerasians agreed to this fraud because the fake families would pay the Amerasians’ expenses. Without this assistance, the Amerasians could not have afforded to immigrate. The extent of the fraud is unknown, but a November 1992 GAO report found that in 1991, about 20% of applicants were rejected for fraud. By 1992, 80% of applicants were rejected for fraud.
A final problem–though perhaps this is not a problem with the AHA itself–is that many Amerasians had a tough time adjusting to life in the United States. A 1991-92 survey of 170 Vietnamese Amerasians found that some 14 percent had attempted suicide; 76 percent wanted, at least occasionally, to return to Vietnam. As one advocate put it, “Amerasians had 30 years of trauma, and you can’t just turn that around in a short period of time.”
Of course, Amerasians did far better here than they could have in Vietnam, but given their difficult lives back home, the adjustment was often not easy. According to the Encyclopedia of Immigration:
In general, the Amerasians who came to the United States with their mothers did the best in assimilating to American society. Many faced great hardships, but most proved resilient and successful. However, only 3 percent of them managed to contact their American fathers after arriving in the United States. By 2009, about 50 percent of all the immigrants who arrived under the law had become U.S. citizens.
Now, Amerasians host black tie galas to celebrate their success as a unique immigrant community. And even in Vietnam, where they were vilified for many years, negative feelings towards Amerasians have faded.
Finally, on a personal note, my first job out of college was for a social service agency that did refugee resettlement, and so I worked with Amerasians (and others) for a few years in the early 1990s. Of the populations we served, it seemed to me that the Amerasians had been the most severely mistreated. Many were illiterate in Vietnamese and spoke no English. They were physically unhealthy, and they had a hard time adjusting. Twenty five years after the AHA, it seems that Amerasians are finally achieving a measure of success in the United States. Their long journey serves as a reminder that persecuted people need time to become self sufficient. But the Amerasians–like other refugee groups–are well on their way to fully integrating into American society.
The Migration Policy Institute, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) and Georgetown University Law Center will be hosting the 8th Annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference on April 26, 2011 in Washington, DC. The topics include the following:
Devolution of Immigration Authority: The Role of States in Immigration Enforcement and Policymaking
The Final Arbiters: When Immigration Policies Come Before the Courts – The panel will examine and debate the prospects and possible outcomes of litigation involving some critical issues in the current political debate: challenges to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, right of basic public education under Plyler v Doe, and the extent to which states and localities can enact laws affecting the foreign born.
State and Local Agencies & Immigration Enforcement: Growing Role, Growing Questions – This panel will examine the federal/state partnerships related to immigration enforcement, including a discussion of 287(g) agreements and Secure Communities, the increasing role played by state and local law enforcement, and the impact of these federal and state immigration measures, including local community perspective.
Detention Reform: Standards, Alternatives, and Vulnerable Populations – This session will discuss DHS detention reform efforts, challenges to reform, civil detention standards, alternative detention models, alternatives “to” and alternative “forms” of detention, the treatment of particularly vulnerable populations, and legal challenges to the US detention regime.
Right to Counsel: New Ideas and Opportunities for Indigent Defense – This panel will examine whether there is meaningful opportunity to expand legal counsel for indigent persons in removal proceedings, and what those vehicles may be. It will also discuss recommendations to law and policymakers set forth by different groups for ensuring access to counsel.
I have attended several of these conferences in years past, and they are always very worthwhile, not just for the topics and the speakers (all of whom are top notch), but also for the opportunity to meet many interesting people in the field. If you can come to DC to attend this conference, I highly recommend it. To register, visit the MPI website, here (by the way, registration is $50 before April 22; on-site registration is $60).
I am pleased to let you know about a new book, Legal Briefs on Immigration Reform from 25 of the Top Legal Minds in the Country. For the book, editors Deborah Robinson and Mona Parsa asked 25 of The Top Legal Minds in the Country this question: If you were called upon by the President of the United States to recommend a piece of immigration legislation that could pass the legal test of the U.S. Constitution and both houses of Congress, what would it include? This book is their answer.
I am also pleased to let you know that your humble blogger is one of the “Legal Minds.” In fact, I am the number one legal mind! The contributors are:
Jason A. Dzubow, Esq. Gary E. Endelman, Esq., Ph.D. Michael Fix, Esq., Austin T. Fragomen, Esq. Chris E. Gafner, Esq. Regina Germain, Esq. Bill Ong Hing, Esq. Mark Krikorian Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. Heather Mac Donald, Esq. Daniel J. McNeil, Esq. Cyrus D. Mehta, Esq. Victoria F. Neilson, Esq. Nancy A. Noonan, Esq. Julie A. Pace, Esq. Renée M. Saucedo, Esq. David A. Selden, Esq. Patrick Shen, Esq. Gregory Siskind, Esq. Rita Sostrin, Esq. Nicomedes E. Suriel, Esq. Carol M. Swain, Ph.D., M.L.S. Jennifer Van Hook, Ph.D. Michael Wildes, Esq. Stephen Yale-Loehr, Esq.
Now, some nattering nabobs might point out that the list of legal minds is alphabetical, and my name happens to be first because it comes earliest in the alphabet. Don’t believe it! As far as I can tell, I am numero uno (take that Kurzban, with your obnoxious “K” and Germain with your sad little “G”!).
The book actually looks to be a great resource for people interested in immigration reform. I have not yet read the contributions by other authors, but they seem intriguing. Here are some that caught my eye: Regina Germain writes about Restoring Dignity to the Asylum Process; Victoria Neilson writes about immigration and LGBT issues, which happens to be a very timely topic; and Michael Wildes, a former mayor, writes about the effects of immigration on our economy. Other authors write about the current effort to repeal birthright citizenship, and the book includes at least a few authors who are generally considered anti-immigration, such as Mark Krikorian from the Center for Immigration Studies.
All in all, it looks to be a valuable source of information for policy makers and others interested in immigration issues. To learn more, and to buy the book, visit the website.
A recent article in the Baptist Press illustrates just how diverse the refugee advocacy community really is–and now, some pro-immigrant organizations have joined forces with an anti-Moslem, anti-gay hate group. The issue that has brought together this “coalition of religious, conservative, and human rights leaders” is the material support bar and the Obama Administration’s failure to adopt reforms to prevent innocent refugees from being classified as terrorists (I touched on this problem in a previous post).
Among the groups that joined together to call for reform are the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), Human Rights First, Concerned Women for America, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The group that really stands out to me is Concerned Women for America. Here are some quotes from their website:
In a time when families are struggling to pay their mortgages and utility bills, much less buy Christmas presents for their loved ones, the Smithsonian Institution, which is partly funded by American taxpayers, is promoting an exhibit that degrades Christianity and exalts homosexuality…. I urge Congress to swiftly take steps to defund the Smithsonian Institution for their reckless and inexcusable judgment in funding such a project.
On September 15, 2011, CWA will present an in-depth discussion with experts on America’s most important policy issue. This issue affects foreign policy, human rights and perhaps even our own system of law in the future. Come join us and our panel as we expose underlying tenets of Sharia Law and how it threatens our nation and your family.
Another measure that failed during the lame duck session was the DREAM Act, a back door amnesty bill that would grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, with “children” defined as anyone up to the age of 35.
So, CWA hates Moslems and DREAM Act children. They also hate gay people: the Southern Poverty Law Center notes that the organization’s founder “has blamed gay people for a ‘radical leftist crusade’ in America and, over the years, has occasionally equated homosexuality with pedophilia.” But the CWA supports reforming the material support bar for refugees, and is thus part of the broader coalition.
What’s surprising to me is that mainstream groups such as HIAS and Human Rights First–groups that I strongly support–would join together with a group like CWA. Maybe I am naive to think that reform can occur without a broad coalition, but it seems to me that some groups are simply beyond the pale. Don’t get me wrong–I greatly respect most of the groups that have joined together to call for reforming the material support bar. But I respectfully suggest that they should be more careful about who they partner with in the future. To me at least, the ends simply do not justify the means.
On June 17, the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held anoversight hearing on the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The hearing was called by Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) as part of a long-running effort to understand why the Immigration Courts and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) are as backlogged, inefficient, and overwhelmed as they are.
Where the magic happens.
While ranking member Steve King (R-IA) continued his crusade to find out what “really happened” in the asylum case of President Obama’s aunt, the rest of the Subcommittee and witnesses got straight to the crux of EOIR’s problems: lack of resources, insufficient staffing and training of immigration judges, and a complete disconnect between EOIR’s capacity to adjudicate cases and ICE’s skyrocketing enforcement efforts.
First up was Juan Osuna, former Chairman of the BIA and current Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. As the DOJ representative before the Subcommittee, he was obliged to highlight the positive changes made during the Obama Administration’s stewardship of EOIR. These efforts include the proposed hiring of 47 new immigration judges by the end of 2010, making the complaint process against IJs more transparent, improving the training regime for IJs, and having “meetings” with ICE to express EOIR and DOJ’s discontent with the massive number of immigration court cases being initiated by ICE right now.
Mr. Osuna is right to be concerned about the astonishing increase in cases before the immigration courts. He testified that there are a record 275,000 pending matters before EOIR. Coupled with the decline of IJs actually hearing cases, this has resulted in an average wait-time of 439 days for a case to go to trial. That’s right—the average person who has a case in immigration court has to wait over a year for a hearing on the merits of his or her claim. Meanwhile, armed with a gargantuan budget and an enforcement mandate, ICE keeps arresting, detaining, and issuing “notices to appear” to as many noncitizens as it possibly can. EOIR has no control over this and clearly isn’t keeping up.
As Representative Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR) pointed out, the overwhelming caseload and lack of support is creating a great deal of strain on immigration judges themselves. Witness and Immigration Judge Dana Marks (also President of the National Association of Immigration Judges), noted that the average Federal district court judge handles 400 cases per year and has three law clerks to assist him. The average immigration judge completes 1500 cases per year and gets ¼ of one law clerk. Further, TRAC Immigration reports have indicated that an IJ gets an average of only 70 minutes to hear an immigration case. Practically speaking, that means that in just over an hour, an IJ has to decide whether the law requires him to split up a family, keep someone detained, or send someone back to his home country to face persecution. And the DOJ wonders why it has a hard time finding qualified, experienced immigration judges?
The laundry list of problems raised at the hearing could go on for pages, so I’ll stop here. I think it is clear enough that as a starting point, EOIR needs more resources if ICE is going to continue to funnel record numbers of people into deportation proceedings. For other suggestions on how to reform the immigration court system, I recommend reading a recent ABA report called “Reforming the Immigration System: Proposals to Promote Independence, Fairness, Efficiency, and Professionalism in the Adjudication of Removal Cases.” You can read the full ABA report here.
Reviewing the data on asylum claims, two facts become clear: total asylum claims peaked in the 1990s, and a substantial majority of claims are affirmative—that is, done voluntarily, not through the credible fear process or through removal proceedings. Although credible fear claims—a process that was first created in 1997—have increased dramatically, the overall number of asylum claims has still not reached the highs of the early 1990s. Unfortunately, the immigration courts have not published the number of cases that they received before 1996, but as Figure 1 shows, the United States has experienced similar surges of asylum seekers to 2016.
Despite fluctuations of up to 35 percentage points during this time, there is simply no relationship at all between the rate of approval and the number of claims being made. Factors other than the approval rate must be driving the number of applications. Some of these claims are undoubtedly invalid or even fraudulent, but given that a majority of claims by individuals with representation in immigration court win their asylum claims, it is obvious that the credible fear process has protected many people from deportation to persecution abroad.
Most guest workers today are Mexicans. This is largely due to the fact that the current guest worker programs are limited to seasonal temporary jobs and Mexico is closer to the United States, which makes trips to and from the United States easier. By comparison, most asylum seekers are from Central America. Assuming that a significant portion of these asylum seekers are either reuniting with illegal residents already in the United States or are seeking illegal residence themselves, these seasonal programs are unavailable to them.
