Asylum in the United States
Following the end of the Cold War, the largest resettled European group were refugees from the Balkans, primarily Serbs, from Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia.
[18] In the last decades of the twentieth century, Northern Virginia; Seattle, Washington; Portland, Oregon; and Atlanta, Georgia provided new gateways for resettled refugees.
[22] Sanctuaries have since played an important role in providing legal access and preventing deportation for asylum seekers, especially under the Trump administration.
[23] "Under the [INA], the Attorney General may grant asylum to individuals who meet several statutory requirements, including that they have suffered or fear (1) 'persecution,' (2) 'on account of,' (3) their 'race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The leading countries of nationality for refugee admissions were Iraq (24.6%), Burma (22.8%), Bhutan (16.9%), Somalia (6.7%), Cuba (6.6%), Iran (4.8%), DR Congo (4.3%), Eritrea (3.5%), Vietnam (1.2%) and Ethiopia (0.9%).
This approach allows immigration clinics to prepare a case with time for gathering evidence, conducting interviews, and building a strong defense strategy.
[52] If applicants are eligible for asylum, they have a procedural right to have the Attorney General make a discretionary determination as to whether they should be admitted into the United States as asylees.
[54] A person may face persecution in their home country because of race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, or social group, and yet not be eligible for asylum because of certain bars defined by law.
[61] On June 11, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed that precedent and announced that victims of domestic abuse or gang violence will no longer qualify for asylum.
This, combined with a period where the asylum seeker is ineligible for a work permit is unique among developed countries and has been condemned from some organisations, including Human Rights Watch.
On April 29, 2019, President Trump ordered new restrictions on asylum seekers at the Mexican border — including application fees and work permit restraints — and directed that cases in the already clogged immigration courts be settled within 180 days.
Dreby's study concluded that academic difficulties and mental health conditions such as anxiety and depression are prevalent among children whose families have been separated during migration.
This allows political asylum to some LGBT individuals who face potential criminal penalties due to homosexuality and sodomy being illegal in the home country who are unable to seek protection from the state.
Dress, mannerisms, and style of speech, as well as not having had public romantic relationships with the opposite sex, may be perceived by the immigration judge as not reflective of the applicants’ sexual orientation.
[90] Researchers, such as Amy Shuman and Carol Bohmer, argue that the asylum process produces gendered cultural silences, particular in hearings where the majority of narrative construction takes place.
[93] This argument violates the concept that one's sexual orientation is a fundamental right and that family and the private sphere are often the first spaces where lesbians experience violence and discrimination.
In a study conducted by Mary Gowin et al. of Mexican Transgender Asylum Seekers, they found 5 major stressors among the participants including assault (verbal, physical and sexual), "unstable environments, fear for safety and security, hiding undocumented status, and economic insecurity.
[107] Mobile applications, in particular, can offer asylum seekers a direct channel to schedule appointments with immigration officials and access relevant information about their cases.
Additionally, these tools can provide language support, connect asylum seekers with legal resources, and disseminate essential information regarding their rights and procedures.
[108] This disparity creates a barrier for those already marginalized and highlights the need for policymakers to prioritize initiatives that provide equitable access to technology, digital literacy training, and language support.
The collection, storage, and use of personal information, including biometrics, raise significant concerns about surveillance, profiling, and the potential misuse of sensitive data.
Asylum seekers, already fearful of persecution, may be hesitant to share personal information through digital platforms, further hindering their access to essential resources.
[109] It is imperative to implement robust privacy safeguards and data protection measures that prioritize the security and confidentiality of asylum seekers' information.
[106] One potential solution is to allow asylum seekers to own electronic files in which they could capture details of their journey and upload evidence supporting their story, giving them control over what data they share.
[106] Policymakers must proceed with caution, ensuring that technological advancements do not come at the expense of fairness, due process, and the fundamental right to seek asylum.
This involves: Only by addressing the ethical considerations and potential harms of technology can its integration truly enhance the asylum process and contribute to a fairer and more humane system for those seeking protection.
Intense psychological stress caused by asylum interviews often compounds pre-existing trauma for refugees, often with little assistance provided by legal professionals to ease the process.
[115] Certain other policies meant to lower the number of refugees entering the country have also received criticism for their role in creating trauma and for violating asylum seekers' human rights.
Detention centers, extremely common in the United States under the Trump administration, are particularly controversial and remain a prominent aspect of US immigration policy.
[117] Other policies such as forced separations and community dispersions, precise and difficult to meet standards to qualify for asylum, and restricted access to basic needs during the process have also been pointed to as unnecessary and damaging.
