For decades, granting political asylum has been part of the U.S. story. As a Western democracy and a nation of immigrants, the U.S. has proclaimed an obligation to offer safe harbor to people fleeing persecution in their home countries. Regardless of who wins the White House, the presidential election is likely to mark the end of the asylum system as Americans have known it, finds New York Times interviews with two dozen immigration lawyers, scholars and former federal officials. That system is broken, many critics, supporters and ordinary Americans said — a result of its transformation into something that it wasn’t intended to be. While former President Trump and Vice President Harris offer starkly different perspectives on immigration policy, both candidates promise sweeping restrictions on granting asylum, signaling the overhaul of longstanding commitments that have made the U.S. a global leader in aid to refugees.
The shift — a response to the rising numbers who have grown concerned about migrants entering the U.S. could have broad implications for people who have long seen the nation as a beacon of hope for protection from violence or political repression. With at least 169,000 people claiming asylum at the U.S. southern border last year alone, many are finding themselves increasingly stranded in desperate, unsafe conditions like camps or crowded boats as other Western democracies similarly tighten their borders and authoritarian governments expand their powers. Trump, who during his presidency severely reduced the number of refugees and asylum seekers allowed to enter, is promising even more drastic actions to curb both legal and illegal immigration. Harris has vowed to continue executive measures enacted by President Biden this year that restrict how and where people can apply for asylum at the southern border. Those measures solidified Democrats’ rejection of the long tradition of providing asylum, a change that would have been inconceivable for the party until recently.
Comentários