In contrast to the Republican Platform, the Democratic Party Platform specifically discusses asylum, though mostly in the context of securing the border. While the Platform is fairly general and was created when Joe Biden was still the presumptive nominee, I would not expect major changes if Kamala Harris is elected president. Aside from future aspirations, the Platform discusses the Biden Administration’s accomplishments, though again, mostly related to border security. Here, we will look at the Biden Administration’s claimed accomplishments, as well as the party’s future plans. (more…)
The Democratic Party has released its 2020 Party Platform, which represents the Democrats’ aspirations for the next four years. Separately, the Biden/Harris campaign has released its immigration plan. Both plans contain concrete policy suggestions (as well as plenty of hyperbole), and here I want to discuss the points that relate directly to asylum.
Before we get to that, let’s briefly look at the most important points related to immigration generally, since these proposals would also affect asylum seekers. In terms of immigration, the Democratic Party Platform seeks to accomplish the following–
- Stop work on the border wall
- End the Muslim ban
- Protect Dreamers and parents of U.S. citizen children
- End the public charge rule (form I-944)
- Provide a path to citizenship for undocumented migrants living in the U.S.
- Reduce immigration backlogs
- Make it easier for spouses and children of Green Card holders to come to the United States
- End the 3/10 year bar
- Expand protections for victims of human trafficking and sex trafficking
- Provide stronger work-place protections for non-citizen and undocumented workers
- End workplace and community raids
- Re-instate prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases
- Prioritize alternatives to detention and end the practice of holding non-citizens for long periods
- Consider expanding TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for people from war-torn countries
- In terms of enforcement, prioritize criminals and others who threaten our national security
- Reform employment-based visas for immigrant and non-immigrant workers
- Provide more support services for new immigrants, so they can better integrate into U.S. society
- End the use of for-profit detention centers
- Increase the number of refugees admitted into the country
The Platform also contains a number of proposals that relate more specifically to asylum–
- End policies that make it more difficult for victims of gang violence and domestic violence to receive asylum
- End the criminal prosecution of asylum seekers at the border and stop separating families
- End policies designed to force asylum seekers to apply for protection in a “safe third country”
- End the Migrant Protection Protocols (the “wait in Mexico” policy)
- Send humanitarian resources to the border to deal with the migration crisis
- Send more Asylum Officers to the border, and for asylum seekers who “pass” a credible fear interview, have an Asylum Officer–as opposed to an Immigration Judge–review the full case
- Double the number of Immigration Judges, court staff, and interpreters
This is an ambitious agenda, and it is certainly more pro-immigrant than what we saw during the Obama Administration. Whether these goals can realistically be implemented, I do not know.
As for the proposals related to asylum, you can see that they are largely designed to reverse policies of the Trump Administration, and they mainly apply to migrants arriving at our Southern border. Mr. Trump’s policies have been abhorrent and ineffective (and not always legal), and so we obviously need to do something different at the border. The risk is that by deploying more resources to the border, the government will be unable to interview affirmative asylum seekers, thus further increasing the backlog. Also, if Mr. Biden’s policies encourage more migrants to come here, that could further strain the system and result in a political backlash.
In terms of changing the asylum law, Mr. Biden’s only substantive proposal is to reverse Trump-era restrictions on asylum for victims of domestic violence and criminal gangs. This is an important issue, since so many asylum seekers (especially from Central America) are fleeing these types of harm. Persecution by criminals and domestic partners has not traditionally been a basis for asylum eligibility. Over years of litigation, the scope of asylum protection has expanded to include LGBT individuals, victims of female genital mutilation, and to a lesser extent, victims of domestic and gang violence (under the rubric of “particular social group”). But since President Trump came into office, his Administration has been rolling back these gains, particularly with regard to persecution by criminal gangs and domestic partners. If Mr. Biden is elected and reverses this trend, more people would qualify for protection and lives will be saved, but this could also encourage more people to seek protection in our country.
To deal with this concern, Mr. Biden’s plan includes an effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America (violence, lawlessness, impunity, and poverty). Hopefully that would help improve the situation in those countries and mitigate the number of people seeking protection in the U.S. But in terms of our immigration system, more needs to be done.
Specifically, we need an honest national conversation about who should be eligible for asylum and how many asylum seekers we should admit. Unfortunately, in the current environment, this seems impossible. But until we can have such a conversation, and reach some semblance of a consensus, asylum will remain a political wedge issue and asylum seekers will continue suffering from backlogs and shifting eligibility standards. In the event that Joe Biden takes office in January, I hope that this conversation will be part of his agenda, and that he will work with Congress and the public to reach a sustainable solution for asylum seekers.
Overall, Mr. Biden’s asylum plans seem largely reactive–he wants to reverse the damage caused by the Trump Administration. But he is also advocating for a broad immigration reform, which would benefit many non-citizens, including many asylum seekers. Even if all he did was speak truthfully about migration and respect the law, Mr. Biden would be a vast improvement over what we have now. Let us all resolve to do what we can to help Mr. Biden succeed in November and beyond.
The platforms of the various political parties are basically statements about what those parties believe and what they intend to do if elected. Since it is now election season (the joy), I thought it might be interesting to see what the party platforms have to say about refugees, so here we go:
Republicans
The Republican Party Platform is the only platform that directly references our country’s commitment to refugees. The Platform states:
We affirm our country’s historic tradition of welcoming refugees from troubled lands. In some cases, they are people who stood with us during dangerous times, and they have first call on our hospitality.
This is a positive statement, and it is encouraging. As an asylum attorney, I particularly like the second sentence, which acknowledges that some refugees are people who stood with the United States and now face persecution in their homelands. I represent many people from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere who assisted the U.S., often at great risk to themselves. My clients include law enforcement officers, journalists, interpreters, human rights workers, and others. Given that they risked their lives to help us in our mission, we should offer them refuge when needed.
Unfortunately, of late, we have heard many anti-Muslim statements from prominent members of the Republican party. It seems that such bigotry is inapposite to the Party Platform, which recognizes people like my Muslim clients who “stood with us during dangerous times.” I hope that the spirit of the Platform–rather than the hatefulness of some Republican officials–will prevail in the Grand Old Party.
Democrats
The Democratic Party Platform does not specifically mention refugees. It does discuss immigration, and endorses comprehensive immigration reform, the DREAM Act, and the new Deferred Action program. However, it is disappointing that the Platform is silent on refugee issues.
Since President Obama has been in office for several years, we can safely assume that his policy on refugees and asylees will continue forward if he is re-elected. The Obama Administration has capped the number of refugees admitted into the U.S. at 80,000 per year. However, we have never reached the cap. In 2009, we admitted 74,602 refugees; in 2010, we admitted 73,293; and in 2011, we admitted 56,384 refugees. As for asylees, we admitted 22,219 in 2009; in 2010, we admitted 21,056; and in 2011, we admitted 24,988 (all of this is courtesy of the DHS Yearbook of Immigration Statistics).
President Obama’s policies have been comparable with his predecessors, and I think we can expect similar policies if he has a second term.
Libertarian Party
Since I have an affinity for third parties, I thought I would mention two. The first is the Libertarian Party. The party’s Platform is silent on refugee issues. The only mention of human rights is in the context of property law: “Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights.” The Platforms mentions immigration and states:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
Given the general Libertarian philosophy (“We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid”), I’d imagine that they would leave refugee assistance up to private individuals and agencies, such as churches or humanitarian NGOs. Like much of Libertarianism, this is nice in theory, but has problems in practice. For various reasons, refugees impact national security and relationships between nations. For this reason, governments cannot always leave refugee policy in the hands of private organizations.
Green Party
Finally, the Green Party Platform mentions refugees several times, but always in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “We reaffirm the right and feasibility of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Israel.”
While I support the rights of Palestinian refugees, this is pretty ridiculous. Why single out Palestinians among all the world’s refugees while at the same time completely ignoring refugees from other countries, including many who are living (and dying) under worse conditions than the Palestinians? It seems to me that this is not a serious party platform, which is unfortunate, as we could certainly use a strong, articulate liberal voice on this and other issues.
OK, so there you have it. To judge solely by party platform, I’d say that the Republicans win on the refugee issue, though I suppose the win is mostly by default.