And that's the topic for today: asylum. The left and its media puppets have been throwing about a lot of claims about the numbers of people attempting to cross our southern border - with and without children - that are doing so because they're seeking asylum. As usual, it's largely uninformed.
To be sure, those numbers are up. Why? Because it's easier to get to stay in this country when you've crossed the border illegally, if you can successfully present an asylum case. The problem is that, while those numbers may be up, there is significant question as to whether those seeking asylum actually have a case for it.
The bigger problem is that those on the left - those engaging in the social media hysteria on this topic, those in the media, and quite possibly those in Congress - don't have the first bloody clue what "asylum" means. Their only knowledge of the topic has been gleaned from Rachel Maddow, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, et. al.
So, as is the Curmudgeon's practice, let's go to the source documents and get the facts. Specifically, let's look at the Asylum Eligibility and Applications FAQ page on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website.
First, let's note that none of these laws are new; they weren't passed by Donald Trump. The sections cited below were last reviewed or updated in either 2008 or 2013.
Now, to the questions and their answers, in italics:
Where Can I Find the Law on Asylum?
The legal provisions governing the Asylum Program are codified in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). For the part of the law concerning asylum, please see INA § 208. Rules concerning eligibility requirements and procedures to be followed by applicants and the government are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 8 CFR § 208. Asylum officers also rely on case law to adjudicate asylum claims.
The above is presented in case anyone actually wants to read the law. Instead of reading what some liberal blogger or journalist says the law is.
How Does the Asylum Officer Determine if I Am Eligible for Asylum?
The Asylum Officer will determine if you are eligible for asylum by evaluating whether you meet the definition of a refugee. The definition, which can be found in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), states that a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to and avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, country of last habitual residence because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The determination of whether you meet the definition of a refugee will be based on information you provide on your application and during an interview with an Asylum Officer.
The Asylum Officer will also consider whether any bars apply. You will be barred from being granted asylum under INA § 208(b)(2) if you:
Ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion
- Were convicted of a particularly serious crime (includes aggravated felonies)
- Committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States
- Pose a danger to the security of the United States
- Were firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States (see 8 CFR § 208.15 for a definition of “firm resettlement”)
You will also be barred from a grant of asylum under INA § 208 if you are described in any of the terrorism or security-related inadmissibility grounds at INA § 212(a)(3)(B) or (F).
Read and re-read the words in bold type above (emphasis added), as they form the foundation of whether these claims of asylum are justified. We'll explore that in detail later in this post.
What About My Spouse and Children?
You must list your spouse and all your children on your Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, regardless of their age, marital status, whether they are in the United States, or whether they are included in your application or filing a separate asylum application.
You may ask to have your spouse and/or any children who are under the age of 21 and unmarried included in your asylum decision if they are in the United States. You should bring these individuals with you to the asylum interview. This means that if you are granted asylum, they will also be granted asylum status (unless they are barred from such status) and will be allowed to remain in the United States. However, if you are referred to the Immigration Court, they will also be referred to court for removal proceedings if they are not in legal status.
In other words, if your petition for asylum is legitimate, the kiddos get to stay in the U.S. with you. But if you presented bogus reasons for seeking asylum, the whole brood will get sent back home with you.
Who Is Eligible to Apply for Asylum?
You may only apply for asylum if you are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, you may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if you are already in the United States, you may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, whether you are here legally or illegally.
This point has been made time and again, but the left ignores it: you may only legally petition for asylum if you arrive in the U.S. at a port of entry, as defined above. If you climb a fence, crawl through a tunnel or swim the Rio Grande, you may not legally ask for asylum. So why wouldn't you just go to a port of entry to make your claim?
Simple: if you know your claim for asylum is unfounded, you know that if you cross at a port of entry to make that claim, you'll eventually get sent home after your case is adjudicated. But if you cross illegally at some other point along the border, you only have to present your unfounded claim for asylum if you get caught. The odds are in your favor.
Now, in case anyone wants to review the actual form used to request asylum, here's the link: https://www.uscis.gov/i-589. Just click on the hyperlink for the Form I-589 pdf.
As you read it - you are reading it, right? - pay particular attention to page 5. Note Question 1: "Why are you applying for asylum or withholding of removal ...?" The only possible answers are:
- Race
- Religion
- Nationality
- Political opinion
- Membership in a particular social group
- Torture Convention
This is the foundation of the "Credible Fear" and "Reasonable Fear" standards that are the basis for decisions regarding refugee status, and the granting of asylum.
Here's the rub: those standards are based on persecution, for the reasons above, by one's government. Gang violence doesn't meet the standard. Lack of economic opportunity doesn't meet the standard. Being reunited with one's extended family already in the U.S. doesn't meet the standard.
Voting Democrat for life out of gratitude because the left gave you a free pass to get into the U.S. for any of those reasons that don't meet the standard, also doesn't meet the standard, as much as the Democrats would like it to.
Okay, given that the vast majority of illegal immigrants - seeking asylum or not - come from Mexico and Central America, let's examine each of the criteria noted above, and whether people from those countries can justifiably claim persecution by their government on those bases.
- Race - the people crossing our southern border from Central America are all of the same race. So that's a big nope.
- Religion - most of those crossing the southern border from those countries are members of the dominant religion of their home countries, and there are no reports of religious persecution in those countries. (Indeed, Christians in those countries will generally be treated better by their governments than Christians in the U.S. will be treated by the left.)
- Nationality - since the people coming from, say, Nicaragua are Nicaraguan, and the Nicaraguan government is also Nicaraguan, that's also a nope. (This standard might apply if there were a civil war going on, and the country was divided, as was the case with, for example, Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are currently no civil wars going on in Central America.)
- Political opinion - there are no reported instances of persecution in those countries on this basis, either. True, a number of the governments are corrupt, and in several of those countries both government officials and the police are complicit with the cartels and gangs, which increases the risk of violence. However, some police officers in the U.S. have been on the take from various criminal elements, going back to the 1930s and beyond. And if you think our government isn't corrupt, you're a hopeless Pollyanna.
- Membership in a particular social group - this standard is generally applied in cases of sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or HIV status (the precedent for this was established in 1994 by President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, based on "Matter of Toboso-Alfonso," a court case involving a gay Cuban man). It's highly unlikely that a majority of the families crossing our southern border could present a claim for asylum on this basis.
- Torture Convention - while it's certainly possible that prisoners convicted of crimes in those countries, whether rightly or wrongly, are tortured, this is not the scenario for which this standard was intended.
To that last point, let's examine the history of asylum. A nice summary is presented by the immigrant rights organization, Immigration Equality:
"U.S. asylum law is derived from international agreements written after World War II which provide protection to people fearing or fleeing from persecution. The first agreement, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, was drafted by the United Nations in response to the large migrations of people in the aftermath of the Second World War. The United Nations attempted to set forth an internationally agreed upon standard for who will be considered a refugee. The 1951 Convention, however, only applied to people who were refugees on the basis of events occurring before January 1, 1951. The United Nations incorporated the definition of refugee set forth in the 1951 Convention but expanded it to include future refugees in the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 1 The United States acceded to the 1967 Protocol in 1968. In order to bring U.S. law into compliance with its obligations under the Protocol, the United States enacted the Refugee Act of 1980, adopting essentially the same definition of refugee as set forth by the Convention."
It's important to note that the U.S. definition mirrors that of all other nations that acceded to the 1967 Protocol - in other words, the U.S. treats refugees no differently than any other country.
Note also the circumstances that gave birth to U.S. asylum law: the aftermath of WWII. At that time, a number of countries were persecuting residents on the basis of religion and nationality in particular. Think the Soviet Union under Stalin. And many of us can recall cases of legitimate claims of asylum from Soviet, East German or Chinese athletes who came to the U.S. for various competitions, then escaped their teammates and coaches and made their way to a U.S. embassy to seek asylum.
Thus asylum is generally granted on a political basis, again based on the factors presented above, and not due to economic circumstances, gang violence or family reunification. Let's face it; if escaping gang violence were a justification for seeking asylum in another country, half the population of Chicago would be living in Canada today.
Come to think of it, that's not such a bad idea.
But I digress. The following notes are taken from the CIA's World Factbook for each of these countries: Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. (We don't get many illegal immigrants from Costa Rica and Belize - heck, Americans tend to move to those countries after retirement, so they can't be that bad.) The notes are in the Factbook's "People and Society" section for each country, under "Demographic Profile." My comments follow the notes for each country.
Guatemala: "Guatemalans have a history of emigrating legally and illegally to Mexico, the United States, and Canada because of a lack of economic opportunity, political instability, and natural disasters. Emigration, primarily to the United States, escalated during the 1960 to 1996 civil war and accelerated after a peace agreement was signed. Thousands of Guatemalans who fled to Mexico returned after the war, but labor migration to southern Mexico continues."
The civil war is long over. No mention of any of the factors noted above (if political instability were a justifiable criteria, we could all move to Costa Rica and Belize).
Nicaragua: "Nicaraguans emigrate primarily to Costa Rica and to a lesser extent the United States. Nicaraguan men have been migrating seasonally to Costa Rica to harvest bananas and coffee since the early 20th century. Political turmoil, civil war, and natural disasters from the 1970s through the 1990s dramatically increased the flow of refugees and permanent migrants seeking jobs, higher wages, and better social and healthcare benefits. Since 2000, Nicaraguan emigration to Costa Rica has slowed and stabilized. Today roughly 300,000 Nicaraguans are permanent residents of Costa Rica - about 75% of the foreign population - and thousands more migrate seasonally for work, many illegally."
Again, the civil war is over. Natural disasters, while tragic, don't fit the standard for asylum. And we don't grow a lot of bananas and coffee in the U.S.
El Salvador: "Salvadorans fled during the 1979 to 1992 civil war mainly to the United States but also to Canada and to neighboring Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Emigration to the United States increased again in the 1990s and 2000s as a result of deteriorating economic conditions, natural disasters (Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and earthquakes in 2001), and family reunification. At least 20% of El Salvador's population lives abroad. The remittances they send home account for close to 20% of GDP, are the second largest source of external income after exports, and have helped reduce poverty."
Yet again, the civil war is long over. Remittances back to the country give a hint to the real reason Salvadorans seek to emigrate: $$$.
Honduras: "Honduras' population growth rate has slowed since the 1990s, but it remains high at nearly 2% annually because the birth rate averages approximately three children per woman and more among rural, indigenous, and poor women. Consequently, Honduras' young adult population - ages 15 to 29 - is projected to continue growing rapidly for the next three decades and then stabilize or slowly shrink. Population growth and limited job prospects outside of agriculture will continue to drive emigration. Remittances represent about a fifth of GDP."
Again, look at the remittances as a percent of GDP. No mention of strife of any kind. Apparently the biggest driver of emigration from Honduras is a lack of birth control.
Mexico: the Factbook makes no mention of the reasons for emigration from Mexico, which is the 15th-largest economy in the world. But we know for a fact that it's not ruled by some despotic dictator like Stalin or Castro who persecutes Mexico's people. As noted in a previous post, I've visited Mexico several times as a tourist and never felt unsafe.
It's clear that the primary reason for seeking entry into the U.S. is economic. People want better opportunities to make a living, better health care, better education, maybe safety from natural disasters (though we're not immune from those). They undoubtedly know that the U.S. government is increasingly talking about providing some of these things for free, including to illegal immigrants.
Fine. Come here legally, go through the naturalization process, and become a citizen of the U.S.
Hiding that economic motivation behind false claims of asylum only bogs down the system, and makes it that much harder for legitimate claims of persecution to be processed. Remember a few years ago when the left was all a-clamor for the rights of Syrian refugees? If they really cared about the plight of legitimate refugees, they'd be less inclined to defend the influx on our southern border making false claims for asylum.
No comments:
Post a Comment