Fareed Zakaria: "The US faces a real crisis with its asylum system. My take" (1 Viewer)

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN: Given President Trump's mean spirited and often bigoted attitudes on immigration, it pains me to say this, but he is right, that the United States faces a crisis with its asylum system. Democrats might hope that the out-of-control situation at the southern border undermines Trump's image among his base as a tough guy who can tackle immigration. But they should be careful. It could actually work to the president's advantage.

Since 2014, the flow of asylum seekers into the United States has skyrocketed. Last year, immigration courts received 162,000 asylum claims. A 240 percent increase from 2014. The result is a staggering backlog with more than 300,000 asylum cases pending and the average immigration case has been pending for more than 700 days. It's also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed. 

The initial step for many asylum seekers is to convince officers that they have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. And about 75 percent meet that criteria. Some applicants for asylum have suspiciously similar stories using identical phrases. Many simply use the system to enter the U.S. and then melt into the shadows or gain a work permit while their application is pending. 

Asylum is meant to be granted to a very small number of people in extreme circumstances. Not as a substitute for the process of immigration itself. Yet, the two have gotten mixed up. As the Atlantic's David Frum has pointed out, the idea of a right to asylum is a relatively recent one dating to the early years of the Cold War. Guilt ridden over the rejection of many Jewish refugees during World War II the U.N. created a right of asylum to protect those who are fleeing regimes where they would be killed our imprisoned because of their identity or beliefs. This standard has gotten broader and broader over the years. 

And now includes threats of gang warfare and domestic violence. These looser criteria coupled with the reality that this is a safe way to enter the U.S. have made the asylum system easy to abuse. Applications from Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans have surged even though the murder rate in their countries has been cut in half. 

More broadly, hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in poor, unstable regions where threats of violence abound could easily apply for asylum. Do they all have the legal right to enter the U.S. through a backdoor, bypassing the normal immigration process? The Trump administration's approach has been mostly to toughen up the criteria. Hire more judges, push Mexico to keep applicants from entering the U.S. 

But a much larger fix is needed. The criteria for asylum need to be rewritten and substantially tightened. The number of courts and officials dealing with asylum must be massively expanded. People should not be able to use asylum claims as a way to work in America. There needs to be a much greater cooperation with the home countries of these applicants rather than insults, threats and aid freezes. 

No one fix will do it, but we need the kind of sensible bipartisan legislation that has resolved past immigration crises. Democrats have spent most of their efforts on this topic, assailing the Trump administration for its heartlessness. Fine. But that does not address the roots of this genuine crisis. If things continue to spiral downward and America's southern border seems out of control, Trump's tough rhetoric and hard line stance will become increasingly attractive to the public. 

Keep in mind, that the rise of populism in the Western world is almost everywhere tied to fears of growing out of control immigration.

Click to expand...

Sinn Fein said:

I think he is largely correct - But, I think asylum laws need to be amended as part of a larger overall immigration plan.

That is what all politicians are ignoring - because its hard, and for many, politically unfeasible.

Lawful immigration plans - how many do we need and/or can we accept - border security - including the resources to screen people coming into the country - resources for asylum seekers.  Its a big issue, and it takes a lot of planning.  I doubt it gets done anytime soon. 

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Love Fareed. And it’s an extremely compelling POV. 

His statistics about murder rates in the countries from which we get most asylum seekers being cut in half rather upends my main theory about why they are coming here, and is going to force me to rethink some of my main tenets about this entire issue. Which sucks for me. But that’s the unfortunate thing about facts; they tend to get in the way of your beliefs. 

I’ll have to think some more about this. 

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

His POV is more in line with my friend's that says it's not collapse of these other countries. It's not that things are way worse now. Yet the applications for asylum have skyrocketed. 

It seems his point is Asylum is not the same as normal immigration and people have figured out the system. Many using identical phrases and such. 

This seems to be a much tougher stance than what I'm used to seeing. 

Click to expand...

Sinn Fein said:

I think he is largely correct - But, I think asylum laws need to be amended as part of a larger overall immigration plan.

That is what all politicians are ignoring - because its hard, and for many, politically unfeasible.

Lawful immigration plans - how many do we need and/or can we accept - border security - including the resources to screen people coming into the country - resources for asylum seekers.  Its a big issue, and it takes a lot of planning.  I doubt it gets done anytime soon. 

Click to expand...

joffer said:

why do you think applications have skyrocketed?

Click to expand...

The initial step for many asylum seekers is to convince officers that they have a credible fear of persecution in their home countries. And about 75 percent meet that criteria. Some applicants for asylum have suspiciously similar stories using identical phrases. Many simply use the system to enter the U.S. and then melt into the shadows or gain a work permit while their application is pending. 

Asylum is meant to be granted to a very small number of people in extreme circumstances. Not as a substitute for the process of immigration itself. Yet, the two have gotten mixed up. As the Atlantic's David Frum has pointed out, the idea of a right to asylum is a relatively recent one dating to the early years of the Cold War. Guilt ridden over the rejection of many Jewish refugees during World War II the U.N. created a right of asylum to protect those who are fleeing regimes where they would be killed our imprisoned because of their identity or beliefs. This standard has gotten broader and broader over the years. 

And now includes threats of gang warfare and domestic violence. These looser criteria coupled with the reality that this is a safe way to enter the U.S. have made the asylum system easy to abuse. Applications from Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans have surged even though the murder rate in their countries has been cut in half.

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

I don't know enough to speak intelligently on it. From listening to Zakaria, I think he'd say people have figured out the loophole in the system. It's become a known thing of "you can claim asylum. Say __________ and ___________ and ____________ and you can get it. 

I say that based on what Zakaria said here:

Click to expand...

TheDirtyWord said:

Agreed...why though is reforming immigration though so hard and politically unfeasible?  Would seem there is a lot of room for bipartisanship here given a lot of vague language around what exists today.  It’s obviously complicated, but right now...it feels like because DJT is so polarizing, the middle ground is unsafe.  At the same time, I think everyone prior to DJT gave the issue lip service and henceforth we find ourselves where we are today.

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

His POV is more in line with my friend's that says it's not collapse of these other countries. It's not that things are way worse now. Yet the applications for asylum have skyrocketed. 

It seems his point is Asylum is not the same as normal immigration and people have figured out the system. Many using identical phrases and such. 

This seems to be a much tougher stance than what I'm used to seeing. 

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Yes. And no offense to your friend, but I wasn’t willing to his accept his information, mainly because there is so much right wing talk show stuff of a similar bent which turns out to be either false or highly misleading, so I have grown very skeptical over the years and I assumed the same of your friend, which was unfair of me- I apologize for that. Zakaria is a guy I very much trust so I take him more seriously. 

Click to expand...

joffer said:

but that asylum process has been in place for a while, correct?  you think that Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc. are just now getting the word that it's their best way in?

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

No one fix will do it, but we need the kind of sensible bipartisan legislation that has resolved past immigration crises. 

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Again I don't know. I'm a million miles from being an expert or even having knowledge of the situation. But that seems to be what Zakaria is thinking. 

Click to expand...

joffer said:

I didn't really get that from listening to him, but i could see how someone could take that away.  if that's indeed what he's implying, i disagree on that part.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

One thing doesn’t make sense to me- he stated that 75% of applicants meet the criteria for asylum. Yet according to statistics I have seen in several places (though I can’t speak to their accuracy) there were over 700,000 applicants for asylum last year and we only accepted 20,000. Those numbers don’t seem to jibe. 

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. What do you think has caused the skyrocket number in people claiming asylum?

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Thanks. What do you think has caused the skyrocket number in people claiming asylum?

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Applications from Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans have surged even though the murder rate in their countries has been cut in half. 

Click to expand...

joffer said:

The Gang of Eight bill proposed in 2013 was "lip service"?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Yeah, this is where the “both sides” narrative grinds to a halt.  Obama was ready to sign that bipartisan immigration reform bill, but Boehner killed it.  Anyone complaining about the current state of US immigration policy should start there. 

I like Zakaria and agree with much of his piece, but his take criticizing Democrats for complaining about Trump’s policies but not “fixing the root problem” ignores political reality.  Nothing is more frustrating to me than folks who blame one side for not “fixing” a problem while ignoring the fact that the other side is responsible for blocking the solutions being discussed.  

Investing in courts to better process asylum seekers, investing in the home countries in which these folks are fleeing, etc. all the solutions that Zarkaria proposes would get full Democrat support in an Immigration reform bill.  Of course none of that is what Trump and Republicans want - they want foreign aid cut, walls built, and far more restrictions on ALL kinds of immigration, even legal.  

Click to expand...

joffer said:

are are perfectly happy if none of that happens, because then they still have the issue.

Click to expand...

joffer said:

but that asylum process has been in place for a while, correct?  you think that Salvadorans, Guatemalans, etc. are just now getting the word that it's their best way in?

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Investing in courts to better process asylum seekers

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Do you have that number? I can’t find it. 

Click to expand...

parasaurolophus said:

I find this sentiment usually to be lip service. But I admit I don't know your exact position on deportations, so I will ask.  

If an asylum request is made, the migrant is processed through a facility and released, and then a court decides that this person is not granted asylum and is to leave, do you support deporting them if they don't? 

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

That’s true but if you’re going to play this cynicism game you have to also admit that Democrats don’t mind having the issue as well. They’re thinking 65% of Latino votes gets them Texas eventually. 

If immigration were solved how many Latinos would vote Democrat? Most of them, per polling, aren’t exactly socially liberal. Even at 50-50 that would guarantee Republican majorities for decades to come. 

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

Yes.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Do you have that number? I can’t find it. 

Click to expand...

Since 2014, the flow of asylum seekers into the United States has skyrocketed. Last year, immigration courts received 162,000 asylum claims. A 240 percent increase from 2014. The result is a staggering backlog with more than 300,000 asylum cases pending and the average immigration case has been pending for more than 700 days. It's also clear that the rules surrounding asylum are vague, lax and being gamed. 

Click to expand...

tonydead said:

There was a chart in the video, did you watch?

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

From his video transcript:

Click to expand...

joffer said:

the rhetoric coming from the oval office about potentially closing our southern border.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Yes. Thanks I overlooked it. 

OK, 162,000 last year. We let in 21,000 (despite Zakaria’s statement that 121,000-75%- were eligible.) 

But again, we let in nearly 2 million legal immigrants last year. Suppose we had let in all 162,000? Why would that be significant to our economy or our society? I get that the increase is a problem, but I’m failing to see why it is such a priority problem to so many people. Is it one to you? 

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Here is my point: yes the number has skyrocketed, yes my reasons for that were wrong, yes there appears to be a certain amount of corruption involved: perhaps, for many of these migrants, this is simply a way to bypass the legal system of entering rather than a true life and death situation. (Though I would argue that anyone seeking to come here for our economic opportunities is still, at least IMO, very much a desirable person, no matter what lies they have to tell to get here.) 

But even if the numbers have skyrocketed they’re still tiny compared to overall immigration. And so the amount of attention paid to this issue by our society, particularly from those who regard it negatively and view it as a priority issue in terms of the election, is incredibly magnified beyond its actual importance. 

Click to expand...

tommyGunZ said:

I would caution you about digging deeper.  Because once you understand the bold, it leads to very, very ugly places.  

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

But even if the numbers have skyrocketed they’re still tiny compared to overall immigration. And so the amount of attention paid to this issue by our society, particularly from those who regard it negatively and view it as a priority issue in terms of the election, is incredibly magnified beyond its actual importance. 

Click to expand...

Joe Bryant said:

Ok. Here's where I really don't know what I'm talking about.

Isn't claiming asylum what happens when you show up at the border, claim asylum and then you're processed and detained and assigned a court date and such?

I always thought "immigration" was way more what worked you out before you got to the border. In other words, do people show up at the board and say "I'd like to immigrate?" If so, what happens to them?

Sorry as I'm sure that's a dumb question. 

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Here is my point: yes the number has skyrocketed, yes my reasons for that were wrong, yes there appears to be a certain amount of corruption involved: perhaps, for many of these migrants, this is simply a way to bypass the legal system of entering rather than a true life and death situation. (Though I would argue that anyone seeking to come here for our economic opportunities is still, at least IMO, very much a desirable person, no matter what lies they have to tell to get here.) 

But even if the numbers have skyrocketed they’re still tiny compared to overall immigration. And so the amount of attention paid to this issue by our society, particularly from those who regard it negatively and view it as a priority issue in terms of the election, is incredibly magnified beyond its actual importance. 

Click to expand...

Here’s the story of the Punjabi family that lost their daughter in the Arizona desert. The father, known as A. Singh, made his way to the United States in 2013. He filed an asylum petition. This was not a promising plan. In 2013, U.S. courts rejected 97 percent of asylum requests filed by Indian citizens.  

But after rejection, there’s appeal. If you lose on appeal, you can just stop showing up. The authorities are unlikely to find you, and even if they do, they are unlikely to send you home. Six years later, A. Singh is still in the United States, his asylum case still unresolved. Along the way, he accumulated enough money to send for his wife and daughter. They traveled from India to Mexico, and were then met by smugglers who led them part of the way along the border—and then abandoned them without water in the scorching June desert heat.

Click to expand...

parasaurolophus said:

86k family unit apprehensions at the border in May. 11k unaccompanied minors. Those aren't small numbers.

Remember the little 6 year old that died of dehydration that was used politically? 

Then remember when you were so appalled that people were going to be deported that had been court ordered removed? We have a prominent politician routinely calling to abolish the agency that would remove them. We have churches and other organizations that actively hide them. 

Do you see why we never really get anywhere?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

My understanding is that the migrants who reach are border are the ones seeking political asylum. If you want to immigrate to this country through normal means you need to apply before coming here. I don’t think anybody just comes to the border and says “I want to immigrate.” 

Click to expand...