Thread by @YaelSchacher

You know what I hate? The insistence that US asylum system was born after WWII. THE US DIDN’T SIGN UN REFUGEE CONVENTION IN 1952. US had an ad hoc refugee program till 1980. It would be generous to say asylum was born AT THE BORDER w/ 1980 Refugee Act. It’s been a struggle since.

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1371073429055619073

I say this as a Jew whose paternal grandparents came to the US as displaced persons after WWII in one of the resettlement programs Congress established for discrete populations. US border with Mexico and the Western Hemisphere in general have been treated differently.

And this trade off of security at the border for immigration reform affecting people already here has been a toxic part of our politics since the 1980s and it’s time to let go. It hasn’t led to compromise or progress.

The reason the UN convention is so important is because it includes the obligation of non-refoulement — the idea that you cannot expel people who arrive at the border to persecution. That obligation is key to asylum at the border.

In the 1980s, asylum policy— which was not supposed to be geopolitical or geographical— was skewed such that Guatemalans and Salvadorans barely ever qualified. Since Cold War ended, deterrence started such that policies were geared toward keeping people from making it to border.

Meanwhile, most legislation since 1980s has traded border security for legal immigration and had made it harder to get a fair hearing on an asylum claim (eliminating federal court review) and made it harder to prove eligibility (raising credibility and evidentiary requirements).

I wrote a dissertation on the century-long pre-1980 asylum system in US that will soon be a book. Since finishing, I’ve added a chapter on the border b/k it’s a whole other thing! US protection for those claiming to be refugees has a long, varied, complex history.

My grandparents barely survived—and couldn’t get visas to escape to the US. They were resettled after the fact. Asylum is different— it is to protect people already in the US or arriving at the border. Both it and resettlement are crucial but distinct forms of protection.

This is also why arguments about the US not being able to resettle refugees from oversees because we have to deal with asylum seekers are just hogwash.

Last, it’s same refugee standard one has to meet to be resettled or granted asylum— well founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in political social group. But, again, processes are distinct. And we need to do both.

Actually, a few last points. If the US, for the first time, increased resettlement of Central Americans, it could slowly shift the balance towards more people coming through that route than asylum. But

The it will take time and, also, the refugee standard was created in 1951 and in a very different context.

Also, because we haven’t wanted to face this refugee issue squarely for years, we set up a whole separate protection system JUST for kids, not adults or families.

Last: there are also asylum seekers at the border from Mexico and from Africa, Asia, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Cuba and Haiti. Conflict in those places, COVID-19, the closing off of Europe to refugees, US relations with countries— all need to be addressed head on.

I got a little off track from the Zakaria piece, which is flawed in many ways. It pits asylum seekers and unaccompanied kids against those trying to unite with family. They are not really different groups.

Also, conflates public opinion towards immigration with fact that it declines during Trump administration. That makes no sense since policies the public oppose created that decline and there is broad popular support for increased immigration and legalization.

There really isn’t a “line” for folks in Central America to get on. If we create some of those lines, eventually, we can take some strain off the asylum system. Bottom line is that the problems Zakaria discusses are complicated and far from new and need many new approaches.

TYPO! Particular social group!!!

Alerting all reading this thread there is a typo—in the refugee definition— I meant to write “particular social group.”