Asylum seekers at the U.S. Southern border hail from all corners of the earth: a Central American activist fleeing gender-based attacks, Afghan families waiting months to seek safety, a Russian opposed to the war in Ukraine and refusing military conscription. They (and many others) are the brave and courageous people who seek asylum at the U.S. border. Like generations before them, these asylum seekers are counting on the United States for a fair chance at freedom, safety and a better life.
Unfortunately, these are now the people who could be returned to danger under President Biden’s proposed “asylum ban” — a move by the administration to bar asylum seekers who crossed through another country on their way to the Southern border. Unless people had previously applied for (and been denied) asylum elsewhere or managed to receive an appointment at a port of entry through a new smartphone-based app, they will be effectively prevented from having their asylum claims fully considered in the U.S.
This would represent an abandonment of decades of U.S. and international legal obligations that guarantee asylum seekers their legal right to apply for asylum however they arrived in the U.S. The asylum ban would rob many asylum seekers of a fair chance to present their case to an immigration judge. Similar measures were introduced by the Trump administration and repeatedly blocked by federal courts.
In 2020, then-candidate Biden rejected the Trump administration’s attempts to make asylum seekers at the border apply for protection from another country. “That’s never happened before in America,” he said. In the United Kingdom, conservative members of Parliament have opposed similar legislation (introduced by their own party) that would bar asylum seekers arriving by boat on the grounds that it would violate the human rights and refugee conventions that the UK “had a proud history of playing a leading role in establishing” — along with the United States.
Apart from its legal woes, there’s also every reason to suspect that the proposed asylum ban would further strain Mexico’s asylum infrastructure when it is already one of the largest recipients of asylum applications in the world. Insisting that Mexico do more with already limited resources will cause havoc and undermine regional refugee protection efforts. Over the past several years, our organization has seen how U.S. policies that block or return asylum seekers to Mexico have corresponded with increasing asylum caseloads. Between just 2021 and 2022, there were almost 250,000 asylum requests — and burgeoning delays with limited resources and support in Mexico.
While Mexico may be a viable refuge for some asylum seekers, for many, it is not a safe place to seek protection. Attempts to deter migration passing through Mexico — from building border walls to barring asylum — have not decreased arrivals of people fleeing danger but instead have pushed many to increasingly dangerous border crossings. The administration has said that it is adopting the asylum ban, in part, to address the “pressure” that arrivals of families and individuals seeking refuge in America places on NGOs.
Instead, the ban will only add to the challenges humanitarian organizations like ours face to support asylum seekers, as confused and desperate asylum seekers turn to smugglers or try to cross in ever more remote and deadly areas to avoid being turned back. We saw this happen between 2020 and 2022. As border deterrence policies intensified, Border Patrol’s search and rescue operations quadrupled. We have similar deep concerns about a potential resuscitation of family detention, pushing families desperate for safety to send their children unaccompanied to the border — another possible paradoxical return to the dangerous and inhumane policies President Biden previously criticized.
Despite its claims, the protection pathways the Biden administration has made available are unviable, insufficient and unlawful alternatives to an orderly and dignified asylum process at the border. Protection for people fleeing persecution should not depend on whether they are willing to further risk their lives while awaiting the outcome of their asylum application in an unsafe country they traveled through. Nor should their protection depend on whether they can navigate a glitchy app with very few appointments. At the same time, while the administration has opened new migration pathways through humanitarian parole programs, the slots in these processes are available to only four countries — none of which are for northern Central America, where significant displacement continues. The limited alternatives for asylum seekers to reach safety simply do not match the needs.
With over a third of a billion people in humanitarian need and over 100 million displaced, global needs for protection are at record highs, as some countries with fewer resources face the brunt of welcoming the world’s displaced. At the International Rescue Committee (IRC) we remain ready and willing to partner with governments to help the most vulnerable through humanitarian reception at borders, information and legal orientation, case management services in destination communities, and connections to available economic and social integration opportunities.
The proposed asylum ban’s unnecessary obstacles will threaten, not alleviate, protection systems, while undermining the goals President Biden and his administration have repeatedly committed to pursuing: strengthened refugee protection throughout the Americas and a safe, orderly and humane process at the Southern border.
It is not too late for President Biden to uphold his pledges to build back a functioning asylum system while guaranteeing the legal right to seek safety. In fact, most Americans elected him to do exactly that. To resort to a ban and to break a promise to the American people would only exacerbate the challenges inherited from prior administrations and diminish America’s role and influence as a humanitarian world leader.
Hans Van de Weerd is the International Rescue Committee’s senior vice president of Resettlement, Asylum and Integration.