latimes – The Trump administration moved Monday to effectively end asylum for any migrant who arrives at the U.S.-Mexico border, an enormous shift in U.S. immigration policy that could block hundreds of thousands of people from seeking protection in the U.S. — and is certain to draw legal challenges.
The new rule, published in the Federal Register and set to take effect Tuesday, would bar asylum claims for nearly all migrants from any country. It would do so by prohibiting claims from anyone who has passed through another country en route to the U.S., which essentially would cover anyone other than Mexican residents.
Only in rare cases, such as when a migrant applies for asylum elsewhere and is denied, would a person be eligible to apply for protection in the U.S.
The rule would, in effect, nearly wipe out U.S. asylum law, which establishes a legal right to claim protection for anyone who arrives at the U.S. border and can make a case that they face torture or persecution at home. The law applies regardless of how a migrant reaches the border.
The law currently provides a major exception in cases in which the U.S. has negotiated a “safe third country” agreement with another government. Under those agreements, such as the one the U.S. has with Canada, migrants must apply in the first safe country they reach.
The new proposal would bypass that, effectively requiring migrants to apply in any country they land in, whether the U.S. formally considers that country safe or not.
The new rule was issued by the Justice and Homeland Security departments, which administer the asylum system and was written to take effect immediately when it’s formally published on Tuesday. It would apply only to those arriving to the U.S. as of Tuesday, not migrants already in the country.
The sweeping change drew an immediate threat of a legal fight.
“This rule is inconsistent with both domestic and international law, and we intend to sue immediately to block it,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, said.
“If allowed to stand, it would effectively end asylum at the southern border and could not be more inconsistent with our country’s commitment to protecting those in danger.”
The rule would most directly affect Central American families and unaccompanied minors, who account for most of a recent surge in migrants arriving at the border. But it applies to any nationality, including the large numbers of Haitians, Cubans and Africans who transit South and Central America and Mexico in order to claim asylum at the border.
“With limited exceptions, an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum,” the rule states.
Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan said the rule was necessary despite a recent $4.6-billion bill to address humanitarian challenges at the border, and would deter migrants crossing through Mexico “on a dangerous journey.”
“The truth is that it will not be enough without targeted changes to the legal framework of our immigration system,” McAleenan said in a statement Monday.
The new proposal includes some exceptions: If a migrant has been trafficked, has applied for protection in a prior country and was denied or has passed through a country that is not a signatory to the primary international treaties governing refugees. Mexico and all the countries of Central America have signed those treaties, however.
Despite years of intense lobbying, the Trump administration has failed to obtain an agreement with Mexico — or countries farther south — to serve as a “safe third country.”
Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales canceled a trip to Washington set for Monday after reports that the Northern Triangle country, one of the primary countries of origin for migrants arriving at the U.S. southern border, would sign a “safe third country” agreement.
A suit has been filed in Guatemala to block such a move, and the Guatemalan government said in a statement Sunday it had never contemplated an agreement.
The rule is the latest — and one of the most aggressive attempts — by the administration to curb asylum protections. Two years into Trump’s administration, his harsh rhetoric and intensified efforts to step up enforcement and crack down on immigration have largely failedto reverse a recent surge in migration.
Apprehensions at the border decreased in June by more than 28%, but they remain at the highest levels in about a decade.
Many of the administration’s efforts to scale back or dismantle the U.S. asylum system, such as denying protections to those who cross the border between official ports of entry, have been rejected by the courts.
The president often rails against asylum seekers, broadly maligning them as engaging in fraud. Only about 15% to 20% ultimately win their asylum cases, which advocates say is a reflection of the difficulty of the U.S. system, rather than illegitimate claims.
U.S. asylum law allows protection for people who can show they fear persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political views, or membership in a particular social group in their home country.
Immigration courts are backlogged by more than 800,000 cases, meaning many people won’t have their asylum claims heard for years despite the Trump administration hiring more judges.
During the budget year for 2009, there were 35,811 asylum claims, and 8,384 were granted. During the 2018 budget year, there were 162,060 claims filed, and 13,168 were granted, according to the Associated Press.