Asylum Policy Has ‘Moral Standing’

The Quote Below: More Misinformation from the Media

“IN ITS multipronged efforts to deter migrants from seeking asylum in the United States, the Trump administration has devised policies designed to outsource the problem, mainly to Mexico. Judging strictly by the numbers, that strategy has been effective in stanching the flow of refugees attempting to cross the southern border in flight from violence, oppression and economic hardship in Central America and elsewhere. . . . But that apparent gain has come at a cost — to the safety and welfare of the migrants, . . and to the United States’ moral standing. . . .

“More than 42,000 asylum applicants have been shunted to Mexico under the program, but half are believed to have given up on their bids and returned to their home countries. No doubt, some had wished mainly to improve their financial prospects by finding work in the United States, or hoped to escape domestic or gang violence. Many of these would not have qualified under the criteria the Trump administration has set for granting asylum: persecution arising from race, religion, nationality, or membership in a political or social group. . . . Others, however, might have met the criteria but felt too exposed or frightened to continue waiting in Mexico. . . .

“President Trump, who has proclaimed this country ‘full,’ wants out of the United States’ traditional role as a haven for asylum seekers and refugees. In doing so, he might satisfy a political agenda, but he shifts a burden to neighbors . . . [which] sets a dispiriting and — we would say — un-American example for other nations in the world . . .” –- Trump’s Outsourcing of the Asylum Process Set an Un-American Example, Editorial Board, Washington Post, 9/19/19 [Link]

Fact Check on Quote: The criteria for granting asylum, cited in this article, were not made up—as the article suggests—by the Trump administration. These criteria—government persecution arising from race, religion, nationality, or membership in a political or social group—are the long-standing standards for granting asylum and refugee status.

This definition excludes the great majority of people now arriving from Central America. Poverty and fear of private violence are not grounds for asylum. If safety from persecution had truly been their primary concern, they could have applied for asylum in Mexico or other countries they crossed before reaching the U.S.—rather than continue on their long and hazardous journey to our southern border.

It is quite obvious, and confirmed by surveys as well, that their main goal was to attain the economic benefits of residing in the U.S. The appeal for asylum is just a scam to achieve that end. Taking these factors into account, the Trump Administration most reasonably decided to deny asylum claims of applicants who had not previously applied for it in Mexico or other countries they traversed. It is most telling that half of the migrants required to apply in Mexico decided to “give up their bids” and go home. Once again, that’s not what people truly fearing persecution would do.

The Trump Administration’s action is hardly “un-American.” It is a move to keep our ability to process people at the border from being overwhelmed. That in fact may be the goal of some open border activists who see massive fake asylum claim as a way to sabotage immigration law enforcement. Those who don’t want our border controlled truly deserve to be labeled “un-American.” The administration also deserves credit for trying to protect the integrity of asylum. Our country can afford to protect a limited number of people who can genuinely clam a fear of persecution under the standards of asylum. Massive asylum fraud tends to cast suspicion on their legitimate claims.

The Trump Administration asylum policy has “moral standing,” as policy based on common sense and a proper national interest.




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here