The Refugee Caravan: A FAQ on Asylum Seekers
Why are we letting all these illegals into our country?
We aren’t. It’s true that many people try to cross the US/Mexico border under the radar each year. But unless they have actually been caught and arrested attempting to circumvent the US border, they are not “illegal”.
The correct term is refugee. Some are migrants, meaning they are traveling to find work.
They are not illegal until they break US laws. Presenting yourself at a port of entry or to a USCIS (United States Customs and Immigration Service) office and requesting an application is not an illegal act.
Why does this matter? Because if you believe in law and order, then you should also believe in the correct application of US laws and terminology.
Why are we allowing asylum seekers to come in?
Many countries open their arms to those seeking asylum from genocide, murder, conscription and other abuses. In fact, the United States is only #50 in the list of countries who offer shelter. Forty-nine other countries offer asylum at rates higher than the US.
The president and Executive Branch officials determine the quotas and levels for entry prior to each fiscal year.
President Donald Trump and Attorney General of the US Jeff Sessions lowered the annual refugee quota to 30,000 from 110,000 for 2018 — a huge reduction. As of April 2018, the US has only taken in 5,225 asylees (the lowest level since 1977).
Most caravan members who do finally make it here have passports and plan to apply for refugee and asylum status once they arrive. Or they may decide to travel on to Canada on a guest visa. Regardless, all applicants must be thoroughly vetted before entry.
Previous migrant caravans reported to USCIS for processing as required, so there is no foundation for hysterical claims.
According to an article in USA Today, federal officials interviewed 401 asylum-seekers from the April 2018 caravan, and found that 93 percent “passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a ‘credible fear’ of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data.”
Why don’t these people apply for asylum before they reach the US?
They can’t apply before they arrive. They have to present themselves at a port of entry — it’s the only way to apply for asylum.
If they can find a USCIS office in a foreign country, they can apply for refugee status there. This gets the process started. They will receive a medical exam, a cultural orientation, advice on travel plans, and depending on eligibility, possible assistance with travel.
Pre-application as a refugee does not, however, negate the further requirement to present at a port of entry and complete all the required paperwork required of an asylee, which includes proof of identity, a passport, fingerprinting, and vetting.
Refugee applications only start the process of confirming that someone is escaping dire circumstances. It is not a pre-application process for citizenship in any country.
There are only three USCIS field offices in all of Mexico. They are in Mexico City, Ciudad Juarez, and Monterrey.
What about all the criminals and terrorists in the caravan?
The US military recently released documents verifying that there is no credible information supporting this claim.
The Pentagon’s assessment was that although 20 countries were represented in the caravan, none of them were from the Middle East. Military planners said there was “no credible threat” of terrorism from the caravan, and “no terrorist infiltration.”
The Pentagon also pointed out that the claim by DHS — repeated often by Trump — that there were 270 verified criminals in the caravan was unlikely. One Pentagon official pointed out that if they (DHS) had that information, they would have shared it with Department of Defense. Instead, DHS refused to answer questions or provide any details regarding their claim.
In 2017, only 14 individuals from Middle Eastern countries were arrested coming across the US-Mexico border. In fact, of “2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watch list” traveling to the United States, the vast majority — 2,170 — were trying to enter by air. According to a government report, only 335 were trying to enter by land, and the report does not note whether those encounters occurred at the southern border.
Can people enter the US as refugees just because their country is poor? Won’t that make us the dumping ground for the whole world?
No, people do not qualify for refugee or asylum status just because they are poor or looking for work. They must be able to prove that they suffer from persecution. They must be able to make a “credible fear” argument — and that means providing proof in the way of newspaper articles, death certificates, verifiable threats and other documents.
However, the US definition of persecution is not well-defined and subject to expansion.
People looking for economic relief are encouraged to apply for a B-2 work visa. And yes, their application goes to the end of the list. They must wait behind all previous applicants.
Considering that many industries are desperate for low-cost, unskilled labor, President Trump could choose to increase the number of B-2 visas issued each year, which would help relieve the visa and amnesty overload.
Why don’t they come across singly? Why are they amassing into a huge caravan that threatens our borders?
These are people who are trying to escape countries where citizens — especially young people — are kidnapped, conscripted, tortured and killed. They travel in large groups in order to deter kidnappings and murder.
There are also efficiencies of scale. They can share meager resources, and they have organizers who decide on safe routes toward major ports of entry, and arrange secure sleeping quarters. Along some sections of the route, local municipalities provide buses for women and children, while men either walk or travel in open train gondolas. Traveling in open train cars is dangerous and has resulted in many deaths by falls, or attacks from gangs.
Why are they coming now, right before the United States mid-term elections? Isn’t that highly suspicious?
Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and other Central American counries have tropical and semi-tropical climates. And yet, they also have mountains, as do the countries migrants need to pass through.
Winter temperatures bring below-freezing temperatures, along with icy roads and deep snow.
Summers are “monsoon season” with frequent pounding rains, dangerous lightning strikes, and flash floods. In arid regions, summer temperatures can soar well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit during the day, but still kill you with lightning and floods in exposed or canyon areas.
The safest seasons to travel by road, whether by foot or vehicle, are spring and fall.
Who is funding the caravan? Is someone paying these people to attack our border?
The caravans are typically organized by grass roots activists in the country of origin, who just want to help keep people safe. These are people who can’t afford food or a vehicle, let alone a plane ticket.
They travel in groups to stay safe. They bring as much money, food and water as they can. Villages they pass offer them food and shelter. Sometimes international groups like the Red Cross set up medical tents and food distribution centers.
From 2010 to 2017, a group called Pueblo Sin Fronteras has worked with volunteers to provide legal advice, temporary shelters and to organize food and transportation en route for refugee migrants. In 2018, the group also became more involved in planning route itineraries, sleep stops, and choosing port-of-entry destinations.
Many people stateside who are not traveling with the caravan accuse PSF of coercing or instigating the caravan groups, but most migrants claim that activists in their own countries are responsible for organizing the initial start of each caravan, and that PSF merely provides logistical help and support along the way, through volunteers and local donors.
Aren’t they required to apply for asylum at the first country they come to?
No. Not if they’re coming from the south.
The “first safe country” clause exists only between Canada and the US. We do not have a similar agreement (yet) with Mexico.
Why do these people think they can just jump the line?
Asylum claims are processed in order of receipt. No one is “jumping” ahead of others in the application queue.
While it’s true some rushed to the border, physically elbowing their fellow nationals out of the way as if this were a Black Friday sale at Walmart, this happened on Mexican soil and has no bearing on the US process once applications are received.
Many people have pointed out that clogging the system with fraudulent claims puts legitimate asylum seekers at a disadvantage, and that immigration courts are simply not equipped to deal with tens of thousands of claims. These complaints are certainly legitimate and a matter of concern, but the issue then becomes one of reforming and supporting the system while legally changing immigration laws to better reflect current realities.
But there was violence at the southern Mexican border! People rushed a bridge and crossed illegally! What about them?
There was an incident where people crossed a river into Mexico illegally, after being corralled on a bridge with no water, or access to sanitary facilities. After waiting patiently for many hours to cross through legally, they decided to simply wade the river. One woman was carrying her young daughter, who had recently had heart surgery, and was suffocating in the heat on the bridge.
And, one has to wonder: If the refugees (or migrants, if you prefer) were truly planning to sneak into the US, why did they head directly for ports of entry, instead of, for instance, trying to cross through the Chiricahua Mountains?
Doesn’t the President have the right to close the border?
Yes, technically he has that right — but only for certain reasons, like national defense.
He does not have the right to close the border in a fit of pique, or because he does not want to permit a certain class of people to apply legally at the border.
There was a brief closure at the San Ysidro Port (San Diego) when a group of migrants appeared to rush the border, and a few dozen tried to climb through a fence. Although these events happened almost simultaneously, they were not the same event. Reports fluctuate wildly, and many feature “alternative facts.” The most reliable reports, which come from reporters and authorities on the ground in Tiajuana plus local San Diego news and helicopter video footage, indicate that a group of nearly 500 migrants left the Tiajuana camp, in which conditions are poor, to approach the border and protest conditions and the slow pace of accepting applicants. The protestors mistook the pedestrian bridge for the port of entry where processing takes place, and rushed torward it. The group also included families approaching the border fence just to look over into America.
Donald Trump did not close the border — CBP agents took that step, to pre-empt confusion and violence. Border agents also fired tear gas and pepper balls to disperse the crowd. The port of entry is surrounded by high concrete walls, and apparently no arrests were made on US soil.
A separate group of a few dozen men rushed a different section of fence, some distance away, which was constructed of weathered flat metal sheeting. They attempted to tear it apart and climb through, but were arrested by Mexican authorities. In all, Mexican police arrested 57 people for disorderly conduct, and are deporting 42.
What about all those children that will be separated from their parents? Obama did that too!
No, not really. The Obama-era regulation stated that separate quarters needed to be supplied for unaccompanied children — not that children should be forcibly separated from their parents.
Trump’s catch-and-detain policy keeps all families in detention for prolonged and unreasonable periods, and forces separation of parents and children, even when applicants have presented a credible fear application for asylum.
The Obama administration also did not force parents to choose between retaining custody of their children, or applying for refugee/asylum status. This Trump-era requirement is considered to be unlawful coercion, and is a gross violation of global human rights standards.
But Trump is getting tough on illegal immigration, right?
Yes and no.
So far, he has repeated the phrase “illegal immigrants” inaccurately at rallies and to the media on a daily basis. He has also threatened military intervention at the border.
Two years ago Trump attempted a “travel ban” that was immediately struck down by the courts and had to go through multiple revisions and legal challenges before a much weaker version was passed. The ban was to be in effect for 90 days while a “study” was done to assess the US travel and immigration vetting process. Two years later, there is still no word on whether or not that study was completed by his administration. Central American countries were not included in this ban.
He did successfully reduce the quota for immigration from 110,000 a year to 30,000.
Vetting has been strengthened as of March 2017, against the threat of terrorist entry.
Here all the ways Trump SHOULD have gotten tough on illegal immigration, but hasn’t:
· Trump has not made a remote application process possible, so people can apply in their own country or at embassies and field offices in other countries.
· Trump has not worked with Mexico to send agents ahead to pre-process people. Pre-filtering people before they reach the border would have reduced overload on border staff.
· Trump has not directly assigned more translators and judges to the southern border to assist with an overburdened legal system. Being able to sift through applicants in a timely fashion would reduce both catch-and-release and catch-and-detain scenarios.
· Trump is not providing any resources to make the process faster or more stable, which is creating serious backlogs at the border.
· He has not increased the number of B-2 work visas for unskilled laborers issued each year.
· He has not created a category of visa for short-term seasonal labor — a category which is available in many other countries.
· He has not negotiated a “first safe country” agreement with Mexico.
· Trump has not negotiated an agreement to prevent “asylum shopping,” such as the one that exists in Europe under the Dublin Convention.
· Trump’s focus has been solely on a physical wall, which is unreasonable for most of the border geography.
· Trump has ignored the human and technology needs for effective border patrol and immigration vetting.
· In the eleventh hour, as the caravan was approaching, Trump made a unilateral, authoritarian attempt to negate US law permitting people who cross the border between ports to apply for asylum. That attempt to circumvent the law was denied by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. While the law itself seems sketchy and overly permissive, Trump has had two years to introduce remedies in Congress and has made no effort to do so.
· Trump has not condemned vigilante bands of US citizens heading for the border. These vigilantes are a danger to everyone, including Border Patrol agents and American citizens who live near the border. According to the Military Times, vigilantes have been known to steal National Guard supplies and equipment, and military commanders overseeing troops at the border consider them a threat to US citizens and soldiers.
Related Articles
They Came Fearing For Their Lives (NBC)
Hondurans Fled to the US Because Their Lives Were in Danger. The US Sent Them Back.
A Caravan of Illegal Immigrants: A Test of US Borders / United States House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, SubCommittee on National Security
Additional Sources
U.S. Monthly Asylum Applications
International Justice Resource Center: Asylum & The Rights Of Refugees
U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Entering the US — Documents Required for Foreign Nationals
Dept. of Homeland Security: Visa Waiver Program Requirements
