OPENING THE DOOR: EXAMINING THE PITFALLS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS

Abstract

The United States is facing an unprecedented rise in asylum applications, and these applicants are facing a system that does not have the resources to adjudicate their cases fairly. This work seeks to compare the laws and procedures governing the United States asylum process to the way that those same laws and procedures are being practiced. Understanding the discrepancies between the intents of these institutions and the pitfalls they face, it will then be examined if the suggested solutions from the Biden Administration are an appropriate measure to solve these incongruencies. This is an issue that is central to the political debates surrounding the 2024 Presidential Election. The importance of understanding our asylum system and its shortcomings cannot be understated. With such a major focus on national security and immigration facing US voters this year, we have an obligation to understand how our system is failing, why it is failing, and whether or not the proposed solutions are an appropriate response. It is undeniable that the intended structure of the United States system for asylum is starkly removed from the realities facing asylum seekers today. At every step in the process, the intent proclaimed by the United States government, the White House, Congress, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Executive Office of Immigration Review is not being fulfilled in practice. Asylum seekers face a constant uphill battle in attempting to receive protection. Individuals who have fought to escape danger, violence, fear, and the threat of death due to their identity make it to a land that declares on an international stage its eternal intent to protect asylees and refugees and are met with a system that is not effectively protecting anyone. Biases against asylum seekers, lack of resources, inaccessible counsel, confusing paperwork, and a set of institutions without proper processing capacity all cause individuals with a genuine, credible fear to be turned away. The recommendations offered by nonprofits, legal groups, and even suggested by immigration judges themselves are not being fulfilled. The solutions being offered by our political leaders are incongruent with the tangible solutions being suggested by those on the front lines. This work seeks to spur a conversation about the appropriate changes we should make to our asylum policy to effectively protect asylum seekers while also considering our obligation to protect our national security interests. By understanding and prioritizing the recommendations from experts, we can bridge the gap between our ideal asylum system and the asylum system that exists today.