New Migrants Have a Year to Apply for Asylum. Many Won’t Make It.
New Migrants Have a Year to Apply for Asylum. Many Won’t Make It.
Santos Lopez uprooted his family and walked nearly 2,000 miles on a dangerous trek from Honduras to the United States last spring to escape from a violent gang that was extorting him. The group demanded a monthly payment, he said, to allow him to run his car shop in peace.
Like many others, Mr. Lopez and his family hoped their experience would persuade their adopted country to give them asylum, which is granted to those who face a “credible fear of persecution in their country of origin.” A grant of asylum would allow them to work and eventually apply for a green card and citizenship.
But more than a year after his family — including his wife and two daughters — arrived safely at the southern border, it seems likely they missed the deadline to apply. Mr. Lopez, 42, said he was seeking help from a lawyer.
Mr. Lopez and his family are among the millions of migrants who have arrived at the southern border in the past year. Many, after telling border agents about abuse and persecution that they experienced, a first step in the long and complicated process of seeking asylum, have been temporarily released as they wait for their immigration cases to wind their way through courts.
But even as migrants have applied for asylum in record numbers, advocates and immigration attorneys say that without additional legal support, many — perhaps the majority — will miss their application deadline and fall into a more perilous category of immigrant: the undocumented.
“Our immigration system is broken,” said Henry Love, vice president for policy and advocacy at Win, which runs 14 family shelters and has a contract with New York City to house migrant families.
“You’re going to have so many people who won’t have the opportunity to apply for asylum simply because of the logistical complications of it,” he said, adding: “I have a Ph.D., and there’s no way I could do it.”
You're viewing a single thread.
There were 1.3 million application as of May this year. At this point, it would be better to fix the problems in Central America.
Fixing the problems in Central America sounds nice, but pretty much all prior experience with the United States trying to "spread democracy" in Latin America and elsewhere suggests that would go poorly, and with climate change getting worse all the time it's not like fixing those problems is going to get any easier.
What we can do in the medium term is to streamline the asylum process so it doesn't backlog to 1.3 million applicants awaiting a decision, and in the short term we need to allow these people who fled here to remain here while we sort out this paperwork mess our policies have created.
We can't take in 1.3 asylum applicants. We can't build fast enough to house them all, we can't handle the increased traffic, none of that is possible right now. And if you just let them in before they get judged, then they just disappear and never show up to the appointments. Remember Obama's missing children? That's exactly what was happening.
Traffic? Really?
Traffic, not just in cars, but also lines at government offices, schools, and whatnot. A school designed for 700 kids can't support 1400, for example.
So you think streamlining the asylum process is somehow going to double to US population overnight? You have to be trolling.
No, but its not going help. Its only going to hurt Americans
In a nation of over 330 million people with 16 million vacant homes, 1.3 million is supposed to be a problem? I don't buy it, the resources and money are there, we just lack the political will to put them into play.
then they just disappear and never show up to appointments
You should cite something about how often that sort of thing happens (and how often it happens because the courts reschedule a hearing date and then don't do a good job of relaying that information to the applicant because the contact information they have on file doesn't get updated), but either way I'd personally rather have them go missing in the United States instead of Mexico or another country, because they're a lot more likely to be ultimately found in a mass grave in the latter case.
If you're looking for some sort of common ground - I could probably endorse putting ankle monitors on asylum applicants or something similar to keep tabs on them because I do think they've got less of a right to privacy than a citizen, but slamming the door in their face and saying "good luck with those drug cartels" shouldn't be an option.