A fair asylum process must protect the most vulnerable at our borders

The current administration has billed itself as a champion of human rights repeatedly promising to promote a fair and humane system for asylum seekers. Just this past June, the United States signed the Los Angeles Declaration in which various heads of state committed to working together to foster conditions for safe migration. And on Nov. 23, the administration kicked off the global 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence by proclaiming its solidarity with women and LGBTQ+ people targeted for persecution from Iran, Ukraine and Russia.

Troublingly, recent headlines suggest otherwise. As mass expulsions of asylum seekers under Title 42 are set to end on Dec. 22, some say the administration is considering new restrictions on asylum-seeking. 

For decades, U.S. asylum policies have aimed to deter and punish people fleeing atrocities in search of safety, in direct violation of our obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention. It is well-documented that deterrence policies rarely discourage migration, and instead endanger the most vulnerable. Replacing deterrence policies like Title 42 with others that further delay or deny access to asylum at any U.S. border is not what this administration claims to stand for.  

The administration’s specific focus on protecting survivors of gender-based violence is starkly at odds with deterrence-based asylum policies. Survivors comprise a significant percentage of asylum seekers, so any asylum policy necessarily has a direct, outsized impact on them. 

The Tahirih Justice Center and Oxfam America recently documented in the report, “Surviving Deterrence” how border closures and expulsions under Title 42 exacerbate conditions that put survivors at grave risk of further violence in Mexico including rape, extortion and femicide. Unsafe or nonexistent housing options, lack of economic opportunities, overcrowding and easy identification of migrants at the border all create a perfect storm for cartels, abusive family members, and others to target women and LGBTQ+ people with impunity as they wait in vain for the opportunity to seek asylum in the U.S.  

The looming possibility of new restrictions on asylum-seeking begs the question of whether we are committed to the safety and humanity of all survivors regardless of where they are from or how they arrive. The Immigration and Nationality Act does not discriminate; asylum-seeking is an unequivocally legal act no matter how or where a person arrives at or enters the U.S. The end of Title 42 presents a golden opportunity for the U.S. to abandon its punitive, deterrence-based approach to asylum and replace it with a trauma-informed, service-oriented model to the benefit of all. As further noted in “Surviving Deterrence,” the U.S. could fund “welcome centers” for survivors of gender-based violence and other persecution, rather than incarcerating them. Welcome centers would allow survivors to access information in their native languages on securing counsel, mental health services, case management, safety planning, housing and other critical resources while they await review of their cases.  

We are at a crossroads as a nation. Do we choose to squander this opportunity, or do we choose to make good on our word to honor the dignity and humanity of those most in need?  

We should not be a nation of false promises or one that turns a blind eye toward those who are suffering. We must ensure that we protect the most vulnerable who come knocking at our door.

Irena Sullivan is senior immigration policy counsel at the Tahirih Justice Center.