Thread by @KellyScaletta

So let's talk about asylum. We talk about detention centers and Migrant Protection Protocols and Safe Third Countries and so on, but we don't actually discuss asylum, the underlying principle behind it all.

Asylum is essentially the right to leave a country where you are being persecuted. But in order to leave the country your being persecuted, you have to enter another country where you are safe. And that's the crux of the whole conversation.

During and after World War II, there were tons of people who were seeking asylum because of obvious reasons (Hitler!).

After that political asylum became a big thing because of equally obvious reasons (Communism).

The debate about asylum came down two things, a person has the right to leave their country if they're being persecuted, but does that mean the country they are entering is obligated to accept them?

Wealthier nations were concerned that people from poorer countries could just waltz into their country, scream "ASYLUM" and run an end-run around legal immigration. This is important because it's what the Trump Administration is saying the Central Americans do.

Eventually it was decided that while all people have a right to "seek and enjoy" asylum, each country would decide how to and when to administrate providing it, but all acknowledged the fundamental human right to not be forced to remain in a country where you're persecuted.

In the US applicants mus show there is a well-founded fear of persecution in the home country on account of:
1. Race
2. Religion
3. Nationality
4. Political opinion,
5. Membership in a particular social group.

What do those things mean, though? For instance, a German family was allowed asylum because in Germany there is a law that mandates public schools. A Christian family wanted to home school their children instead for religious reasons. They were eventually provided asylum.

Does membership in a "particular social group" include gays? Trans? How about people who don't belong in certain gangs and are targeted for that?

This is where US law gets complicated. There's something called the Chevron Doctrine or Chevron Defense.

Back in 1984 there was a lawsuit Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. It has nothing to do with asylum, but the essence of the ruling does.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U….

Chevron was suing saying that the EPA was wrongly interpreting the Clean Air act. The Supreme Court ruled that when wording is ambiguous, it's not up to them to decide how to interpret the law. If Congress feels the lie is being misapplied, Congress should make the law clearer.

That ruling has been used by every administration since Reagan to bend laws as much as they can to their own "interpretation."

One of those laws is the laws on asylum and how social groups are defined. Obama defined them one way, now Trump is defining them another.

The way asylum is supposed to work is that someone comes over, says, "I'm being persecuted" and a "credible fear hearing" date is scheduled. They sit down with an asylum officer in a non-confrontational setting and make their case. This is called an Affirmative hearing.

The officer adjudicates whether or not the case is legitimate, and then approves or denies the applicant. If denied, the applicant can have a defensive hearing, where a judge hears it and there's a prosecutor. Here's a little table I made showing the differences:

But the Trump Administration has tried to work this system too, making it almost impossible for someone to pass a credible fear hearing by requiring documentation that is nearly impossible, kicking back approvals to asylum officers demanding they change the findings, etc.

If you want to know how bad it is to be an asylum officer right now, just go look at the job reviews on Glassdoor. It's almost like they're trying to push the qualified asylum officers out the door. Why would they do that?

Because Stephen Miller wants to replace them with border patrol agents: nbcnews.com/politics/immig…

Remember, this is supposed to be a non-confrontational hearing from a neutral party. Somehow border patrol agent doesn't scream neutral to me.

So first the TA changed the definition of who gets asylum, they changed the tenor and tone of the credible fear hearings, they're trying to replace who hears the case. Bad enough right? But they're still turning up the heat.

Through the comically titled "Migrant Protection Protocols" they're sending asylum seekers back to Mexico to wait their hearings, changing the dates, and then not letting them know because they can't reach them BECAUSE THEY'RE IN MEXICO.

Then when the asylum seekers show up for their hearing, they say, "sorry you missed it." And if you miss your asylum hearing, there is no second recourse. And then they use the percentage of people who miss their CF hearings as "proof" they aren't really seeking asylum.

To put things in perspective, out of over 37,000 asylum seekers who have been returned to Mexico to wait their credible fear hearing, only one family has been granted asylum.

And now, as if all that's not enough, they're using this mockery of international asylum law by saying that they didn't seek asylum in Mexico when it's a safe third country. But Mexico isn't a safe third country. In fact, parts of it have the same travel advisory as N. Korea!

We don't have a safe third country treaty with Mexico BECAUSE IT ISN'T SAFE. But we're refusing to even grant a hearing now.

So let's return to the top of this thread and reconsider the basic question of asylum. Do people have the right to seek and enjoy asylum? And has the Trump administration written out that right for Central Americans through policy?