Asylum is the touchstone issue, but only part of the migration picture 

Across the western world, the politics of migration are rancorous and divisive.  The politics is also circular: pledges become more outlandish (think “invade Mexico” or “send asylum seekers to Rwanda”), the promise of control is more often breached than kept, frustration rises, and the cycle restarts.  

The fundamental problem is that issues of asylum, for people fleeing from danger, and questions of immigration, for people who want to move to another country for a better life, have become confused.  The danger is that democratic countries in the West who preach the virtues of human rights and the rule of law end up abandoning their commitment to upholding these values in the case of refugees and asylum seekers.  This is neither right nor necessary.

Asylum is the touchstone issue, but only part of the picture 

Migration is on the rise, and it comes in two forms – voluntary and forced.

In total there are nearly 300 million people living outside their country of birth.  That is 3.6 per cent of the global population. 

Immigration systems are designed country by country to match the aspirations of those hoping to move for a better life with the needs of the host country.  Each country will make the choice of how open, or closed, to be in line with national priorities of economic development, cultural enrichment, and family reunification. 

The current US immigration system features outdated quotas. The number of immigrant visas the US can issue each year has not increased since 1990, despite the US population growing 34% and GDP growing nearly 350% in the same period. This results in years long processing times, and poorly functioning options for workers and family unification. Populations with lifelong ties to the US – like the so called Dreamers who were brought to the US as children and often have no memories of their countries of birth – are left in limbo.  Instead of modernizing pathways to the country, including more sensible options for employers and communities facing labor shortages, the process at the border has become the de facto immigration option - both for those seeking refugee protection and those looking for other opportunities.

The writers of the 1951 Refugee Convention made it illegal to send people back to danger. These people would be given refugee status, “asylum,” to prevent them being pushed back into harm's way.   The rights of individuals under asylum law are different from those under immigration law. The two serve different purposes, but when one is missing, the other takes on the whole strain. The result is a strain on border management, a revenue stream for human smugglers and danger for migrants.  This is the world of forced migration.

There are 50 million refugees and asylum seekers today.  These people are fleeing conflict and disaster, some of it exacerbated by the climate crisis.  The figure has more than doubled in ten years.  

Many believe the West is the principal host of the portion of those in need. The opposite is true.  Around two thirds of refugees and asylum seekers are hosted outside the US or Europe. Of the top five refugee-hosting states (Iran, Türkiye, Germany, Pakistan and Uganda) only one is in the EU.  

But the US and EU’s asylum systems are not coping well with the strain they face.  The numbers entering the US to claim asylum has averaged around 200,000 per year over the last twenty years, with highs of 750,000 and 1.2 Million in 2022 and 2023. 

In the US, new asylum seekers can expect to wait for five to six years for the validity of their asylum claim to be determined.  During this period, they are denied the right to work for the first six months, which drives them into the underground economy.  Border states feel grievance that this is not treated as a national problem.  This failure of policy makes the politics unsustainable.  

In Europe in 2023, the numbers of people seeking asylum reached a 7 year high with 1.1 million new applications.  Until recently, the EU-wide asylum system was governed by the “Dublin Regulation,” which placed undue pressure on front-line states, like Greece and Italy. They were in the equivalent position to US border states: taking the lion’s share of responsibility.

This system failed to meaningfully manage migration into or in the EU. In an effort to resolve the situation the EU, and its member states, entered into a series of agreements with third-countries focusing on intercepting and returning would-be asylum seekers before they reach European soil.

The recently enacted EU Pact on Migration and Asylum attempts to modernize and standardize this system. There are positive developments in the Pact, such as its promotion of new safe pathways and increased refugee resettlement (learning from US experience). Yet by attempting to fix broader migration challenges through reforms to the asylum system alone, the EU is setting itself up for failure.      

Can’t stop migration with deterrence 

Many factors motivate, or force, people to migrate - for better paying work, to unite with family, to escape persecution and conflict. For years, the US and other countries have argued that by making policy more punitive, people will be deterred from leaving home and coming to their borders. However, these deterrence policies do not effectively reduce the number of people arriving. Over the last four US presidential terms labor market tightness in the US – the demand for labor - rather than varying asylum and border policies have more closely correlated to shifts in migration. 

Despite using the pandemic- era “Title 42” policy nearly 3 million times to expel people arriving at the US southern border without allowing those seeking protection to apply for asylum, border encounters rose significantly. Rather than reduce attempts, people repeatedly attempting to cross rose by more than 150 per cent.  A review of increased detention practices around the world found no association with a reduction in the number of people applying for asylum or arriving to seek refuge. Some border restrictions have resulted in initial declines in numbers at inception, but past experience shows that impact fades. 

Safe, structured alternatives to crossing borders have proven more effective. Pathways like expanded parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans has proven effective in border management and essential for those nationals. That expanded parole resulted in a 44 per cent decrease in irregular crossing of nationals from those countries in the months following implementation.

An asylum system: legal, orderly, fair

Rooted in international conventions ratified in the wake of the Holocaust, asylum is designed to protect those fleeing for their lives. It triggers a set of ethical and legal obligations that distinguishes it from other types of immigration policy choices. At the heart of those obligations is an absolute prohibition of returning anyone to a country where they are likely to face persecution or torture. To uphold those obligations, promote the system’s integrity, and ensure public confidence in asylum for the long haul, we need a process that is, and that is seen to be, legal, orderly and fair.

Legal

Upholding the legal right to seek asylum does not mean every person seeking asylum will get to stay. Too often political rhetoric suggests nearly everyone in the system, or practically no one, is a refugee.  Neither is true.

A well-functioning asylum system should have efficient processes to quickly grant long-term protection to those meeting the refugee definition, and due process to ensure that people with less clear-cut claims have their cases properly evaluated.  People who have a fair hearing of their claim and have been denied should be returned.

Returns need not be cruel or chaotic. IRC has seen, when done well, returns are more sustainable. IRC’s “Safe Return” program collaborates with the Honduran Red Cross and Plan International Honduras to provide reintegration services and gender-based violence protection. Improving municipal and civil society services, economic opportunities, and reliable information can increase reintegration. IRC is perpetually evaluating its programs to ensure best-practices in these interventions. 

Orderly 

Achieving an orderly asylum process heralds benefits for recipient communities and asylum seekers alike. Currently, the border is seen as a place of chaos and crisis. This does not need to be the case. Implementing streamlined case management, increasing coordination for asylum seekers, and enhancing information dissemination counteracts the chaos. IRC is implementing a new federal case management pilot program that helps clients navigate systems to address emotional, psychological, and economic concerns. A prior program resulted in 99 per cent compliance with immigration proceedings, and we are already seeing similar results. In Phoenix, IRC’s Welcome Center alleviates the burden to communities right on the border through extra capacity and coordination with local government, NGOs, and federal agencies. There has been a precipitous drop in street releases since it opened. 

Congressional action is not needed to enact policies that make the process more orderly. For example, the Administration could create an executive level role with specific responsibility for coordination of reception across federal agencies and with state/local entities, NGOs, and faith-based groups. Similarly, the Administration could increase the number of ports processing asylum claims–currently at a lousy eight. People seeking protection at the US southern border are going through ports of entry when that option is available. The Administration’s Safe Mobility initiative is allowing people to apply for refugee protection and other available legal pathways much closer to home, giving people an answer before they continue on dangerous journeys to the border.

Fair 

The asylum system should be fair for applicants and host communities. Realizing a fair system would alleviate stress on border communities, help communities seeking labor and support those qualified for refugee protection.  

Enabling a more efficient adjudication process, heightened support for host communities and work flexibility for those in the adjudication system is pivotal in that process. The backlog leaves refugees in limbo while those who will eventually get denied spend years living and working in the United States before getting an answer. Accelerated processing does not always necessitate greater funding. Tweaks to federal initiatives like the Asylum Processing Rule, which expands authorization to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to consider additional asylum applications, offers hope for an expedited system. Done correctly, this could mean more processing without a significant increase in cost. 

To address the challenges communities face and with the demand for labor across the US, swift action on coordination and work authorization is essential. While some communities feel burdened by asylum seekers, others are in dire need of the workforce. Governments in Maine, Missouri and Pennsylvania have all said they would be interested in hosting. Initiatives like the Destination Reception Assistance Act, which provide federal resources to host communities so that new arrivals can unlock their economic, social and other contributions.

Right now, asylum seekers must wait at least six months before they can legally work. Evidence suggests that expediting work permits, streamlining degree recognition, and easing licensing requirements amplify asylum seekers' benefit to host communities economically. Cutting wait times means asylum seekers can more quickly support themselves. Paired with federal coordination, which can facilitate humane and orderly movements of people to different states and cities to alleviate stress on border towns, these types of initiatives hold the promise of ameliorating strained communities and simultaneously revitalizing municipalities in dire need of workforce bolstering. 

Alternatives Upstream

A successful approach cannot only address the issue at the border. It must start at the source of crisis, support neighboring countries hosting the majority of those displaced, offer alternatives to high-risk routes and provide credible information to those considering their choices.  

Latin America and the Caribbean are home to 20 million forcibly displaced individuals. The vast majority will stay in the region due to choice or necessity. The goal of a migration strategy will take coordination and cooperation across borders.

Every year, IRC identifies 20 countries at greatest risk of new crises. Those countries alone are home to 75 per cent of displaced people, and yet they receive inadequate support. Haiti is experiencing a resurgence in destabilizing violence, 90 per cent of people in poverty and 44 per cent living in the worst levels of food insecurity. It received a measly quarter of the funding it needs to address the most pressing problems its people face.

Venezuela remains among the largest global displacement crises. A fifth of its population, more than 10 million people, have fled their home. It is missing 90 per cent of the funding it needs - $500 million dollars or 2 per cent of what the federal government spends on border enforcement, detention and removal. Whereas these crises are complex and there is no easy fix to stabilize fragile countries, we can start by properly funding the humanitarian response - including climate change resilience, while supporting the regional diaspora from these countries, whose remittances have become vital in staving off emergencies.    

Support to countries hosting migrants is a key piece. Over the last three years, Mexico has received more than 100 thousand new asylum claims per year. It has the fourth highest number of pending asylum cases globally. Even as it offers protection to hundreds of thousands, the country itself faces significant internal challenges related to violence and climate change. Mexico is home to 7 of the 10 most violent cities in the world.

IRC provides technical support to Mexico’s asylum agency and works directly with refugees throughout the country to ensure they can access safety, reliable information, and work to support themselves. More of this work is needed.

Colombia hosts more than 7 million people seeking protection. Through regularization programs millions have been able to find safety and become self-sufficient. IRC has helped more than 350 thousand Venezuelans in Colombia since 2018. A lack of sustainable multi-year funding and regional coordination puts this in jeopardy. 

Providing support to host countries is essential, but establishing efficient and safer pathways to destination countries has also proven effective. Promising models like Safe Mobility Offices in Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Ecuador, have increased referrals from the Americas to the US Refugee Admissions Program by a factor of ten–with more than 28,000 refugees approved in the first half of 2024.  By allowing more refugees to request protection and be screened abroad, they can avoid the dangerous journey to the southern US border.

Accurate information as individuals are making decisions augments the potency of humanitarian programming, deterring life-threatening encounters. Programming like IRC’s Signpost allows asylum seekers to connect with trustworthy sources of information, disempowering smugglers and informing asylum seekers on how to find protection. 

The way forward

The politics of migration is tempting for some and alarming for others.  But voters and migrants need answers.  They are available, if we look in the right places.