America’s asylum system not to be outsourced

Make text smaller Make text larger

  • Immigration policy: protests after families split up at border (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

    Immigration policy: protests after families split up at border (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)


The crisis involving migrants fleeing violence in Central America, seeking sanctuary in the United States and overwhelming American immigration courts is real.

The Obama Administration was flummoxed by it when the numbers of women and unaccompanied children crossing the border spiked in 2014. The Trump Administration, predisposed against immigrants of almost any kind, has responded to it by means of outright cruelty, splitting up families to deter migration, shattering the lives of children and parents in the process.

That outrage does not diminish the urgency of dealing with the waves of Central Americans flooding northward. What would constitute a reasonable, humane and legal response?

One option examined by the Obama Administration, and now being pursued more actively by the Trump Administration, is to push the problem to Mexico. The idea is to strike a bilateral deal requiring migrants to seek protection by applying for asylum there rather than in the US.

In theory, it makes some sense; Europe pursued a similar deal with Turkey in 2016, at a cost exceeding $6 billion, to stanch the flow of refugees from Syria. In practice, it is a terrible idea that would subject migrants from Central America and elsewhere to further violence and danger, and probably do little to curb illegal immigration to America.

In 2002, the US and Canada secured a similar arrangement, known as a “safe third country” agreement. It has worked because Canada is, in fact, a safe third country: migrants who apply for asylum there are secure, and their cases are fairly adjudicated.

By contrast, Mexico is patently unsuitable as a place of refuge for most migrants, especially those from Central America, who suffer exploitation, violence and sexual assault almost routinely as they make their way north.

In a recent report, Doctors Without Borders noted that two thirds of Guatemalan, Salvadorean and Honduran migrants in Mexico have reported being victims of violence; almost one third of migrant women there had been sexually assaulted.

Twelve of the world’s 50 most violent cities are in Mexico. Forcing refugees to seek sanctuary in Mexico would thrust tens of thousands of them into a country with weak law enforcement, a flimsy judicial system, an anaemic asylum process and predatory criminal gangs.

Under those circumstances, it is folly to think migrants would stay put. Much more likely, they would simply find a way to enter the US illegally, even without the chance to apply for asylum.

Administration officials may hope to exert leverage to induce Mexico to accept such a deal, perhaps in return for a break on tariffs or the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Donald Trump has threatened to curtail. They may seek to exploit Enrique Peña Nieto’s lame-duck period as Mexican president, before his elected successor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, takes office on December 1.

That does not change Mexico’s on-the-ground reality.

This is not an argument for open borders. Rather, the right response, and the one most likely to succeed in the long term, is for the United States to redouble efforts to strengthen governments and fight the lawlessness that has seized Central America’s refugee-producing countries. Short of that, the administration’s efforts will be self-defeating.

You must be registered or signed-in to post comment or to vote.

Published Jul 23, 2018 at 8:00 am (Updated Jul 22, 2018 at 9:18 pm)

America’s asylum system not to be outsourced

What you
Need to
Know
1. For a smooth experience with our commenting system we recommend that you use Internet Explorer 10 or higher, Firefox or Chrome Browsers. Additionally please clear both your browser's cache and cookies - How do I clear my cache and cookies?
2. Please respect the use of this community forum and its users.
3. Any poster that insults, threatens or verbally abuses another member, uses defamatory language, or deliberately disrupts discussions will be banned.
4. Users who violate the Terms of Service or any commenting rules will be banned.
5. Please stay on topic. "Trolling" to incite emotional responses and disrupt conversations will be deleted.
6. To understand further what is and isn't allowed and the actions we may take, please read our Terms of Service
7. To report breaches of the Terms of Service use the flag icon

  • Take Our Poll

    • "What are your views on stop-and-search in today's Bermuda?"
    • Inconvenient but necessary
    • 69%
    • Wholly unproductive
    • 10%
    • Unfair targeting of young black males
    • 21%
    • Total Votes: 4697
    • Poll Archive

    Today's Obituaries

    eMoo Posts