Essay Example on Asylum Seekers: Seeking Classification and a New Life

Asylum seekers are migrants in constant search of classification as they arrive at the borders of a nation looking forward to resettling and start a new life. Most of them are forced out of their countries by ethnic strife, violent wars, collapsed economies, and expulsion by the government. According to the Treaty on Forced Migration established in 1951- the convention relating to the status of refugees holds that granting asylum or refuge to persons applies to those who fear or have undergone persecution based on their religion, political affiliation, nationality, race or social class. Embarking on a journey to the United States requires that most of them follow perilous and longest routes, which poses a risk to their safety. The United States allows both refugees and asylum seekers on its soil, which resulted in it becoming the leading refugee resettlement country in the world. Granting of asylum seekers protection requires that an individual proves they are who they claim and, at times, have to seek the assistance of an attorney to prove their case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Besides, asylum seekers are beneficial to a country as they contribute to economic development because they bring forth their talents, skills, and competences. They have to work towards better living standards, and in doing so, they enhance economic growth. Also, some of them engage in innovative activities whereby they come with mechanisms of making work more accessible for the corporations to increase their productivity and remain competitive in the industry. Thus, the host government should ensure that these people stay close to their children, inflicted harm, or criminalized. More so, they contribute to diversification in the country as they bring cultural vibrancy, which aids in refining the ways of life of a people. On the other hand, some people seek asylum illegally in that some of them are most wanted criminals such as terrorists or fraudulent economic migrants. Thus, countries need to observe vigilance and conduct extensive background checks before granting asylum protection to individuals. The treatment accorded to asylum seekers has its basis on aspects such as constitutionally based rights, administrative procedures, immigration politics, and international norms that design how to undertake Refugee Status Determination (RSD) in every state. For this reason, this research paper will critically analyze how the United States should respond to asylum seekers by highlighting both the merits and demerits of its reaction to granting them protection.

The United States has the mandate of offering refuge to the people who seek a haven in the county due to persecution or death from their mother countries. However, the federal government made some policy changes in 2017, resulting in harm to the asylum system. The "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" and "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" are the two "executive orders" enforced and are bound to harm the asylum seekers (Trucios-Haynes & Michael 577). They will hinder access to the United States for those seeking asylum where they will incur penalties and hardships despite being traumatized and vulnerable. The Border Security Executive Order requires that those seeking asylum and are from Mexico to go back to their country till the removal of hearings. However, Mexico exerts impunity on asylum seekers as most of them are victims of crime and violence. For the Border Security Order, the administration seeks to construct a wall-barrier to protect its territory. Those seeking asylum from persecution will suffer from the execution of this order.

Besides, the Border Security Executive Order calls for stepped-up prosecution of any offense inclusive of the non-violent ones like unlawful entry and re-entry. However, bona fide asylum seekers usually do not have valid documentation permitting their getting into the United States because the asylum statute postulates that people "irrespective of status" may apply for asylum as long as they are "physically present in the country" (Cervantes & Walker "Five reasons Trump's immigration orders harm children"). Thus, this order ignores the plight of these people and penalizes them for exercising their rights under international and domestic legislation to seek asylum. It implies that a reduction in asylum seekers will manifest in the United States due to restrictions brought forth by the executive orders. Seeking refuge in the United States means that an individual has found a safe have free from torture, persecution, and death. But asylum seekers have experienced challenges when maneuvering through the stringent and complex immigration legislations of the United States and the limiting environment that barricades granting safeguards to bona fide asylum seekers. However, the two executive orders have had both positive and negative impacts.

Separation of families seeking asylum and detaining children is one of the demerits associated with the implementation of the executive orders. The "zero tolerance policy" resulted in the apprehension of everyone near the territory inclusive of adults seeking asylum with their children, and all of then underwent criminal prosecution. Separating children from their parents is a violation of the core standards highlighted in the "Flores Agreement" whose formulation resulted from the continuous mistreatment and detention of children in federal custody in Central American in 1980 (Kim et al. 225). According to this agreement, the government has the obligation of releasing detained children with immediate effect, lessen the restrictions in their surroundings, and execute principles regarding proper care and treatment while under custody. Taking children away from their parents causes traumatic experiences that affect their social and emotional development negatively. Such children have challenges in the development of self as they grow up.

Domestic violence survivors have had a challenging time in seeking asylum in the United States due to the executive orders put in place by the federal government. Most of the cases of women fleeing their countries due to domestic and gang violence have had their cases dismissed rather than their cases listened to based on merit (Riva 312). Thus, such women are at a high risk of experiencing death upon returning to their mother countries.

Policies enacted by the administration of the United States, where asylum seekers have to remain in their mother countries, and wait for the evaluation of their cases, put them in danger. Returning to the states where they are fleeing persecution increases the risk of having them killed or experiencing acts of impunity. Besides, the process takes a lot of time as enforcers of this policy use "metering," where there is the limitation of those visiting the U.S. authorities at the entry points. The bureaucratic security vetting processes employed have led to prolonged waiting time which is risky for the refugees. The policy of "Migrant Protection Protocols" (MPP), however, sends back asylum seekers who have successfully made their claim to the border authorities (Trucios-Haynes & Michael 577). They do so to wait until the hearing of their case by an immigration judge in the United States. Besides, some of the asylum seekers have to seek the assistance of an attorney to assist them in making their claim. Consequently, the challenges of having a fair review of their applications increases as some cannot afford the services of an attorney. Also, sending asylum seekers back to the countries they are fleeing from heightens the chances of kidnapping, sexual abuse, physical violence, and recruitment in gangs.

On the other hand, the executive orders are beneficial to the United States in that they have aided in the reduction of criminals entering the United States through the southern border. Some people try to fake their way into the country with wrongful intentions. The state established immigration policies that aided in preventing entry of specific individuals such as those convicted of a crime or political troublemakers. Enhancing mechanisms of border control is vital as it allows the authorities to determine the individuals who have credible claims of seeking asylum.

Moreover, the country has saved on economic costs incurred in resettling asylum seekers such as Medicaid used in the provision of healthcare services. The implication is that government expenditure is high in the first years before asylum seekers become stable by getting jobs that sustain their living in the United States. Such spending has a negative fiscal impact as it prompts the administration to forego the provision of some public services to meet the needs of those in the asylum (Mayda & Peri, "The economic impact of U.S. immigration policies in the Age of Trump"). The federal administration argued that the refugee resettlement program results in a fiscal burden.

Some asylum seekers may get into the country as political infiltrators with the intent of spying and gathering sensitive information and sharing it with terrorist groups. Political infiltration is another reason that prompted the government to enforce strict regulations that govern the process of seeking asylum. Infiltrating sensitive information regarding the government puts the country at a high risk of experiencing coups or terrorist attacks (Wadhia 353). Thus, the federal government enhanced the screening at the borders to ensure that they prevent such cases.

Conclusion

All in all, people fleeing their countries due to violence, fear of persecution, political and economic reasons seek safety in the United States by applying for asylum. Such people have a commercial advantage to the country as they contribute to economic development. However, some of them are detrimental in that they engage in criminal activists, and others are terrorists. To lessen the negative impacts of asylum, the administration of the United States formulated immigration legislation that limits the entry or re-entry into the country. However, the policies have inflicted harm on the asylum system by making it difficult for people seeking safety to win protection. The procedures require that asylum seekers return to their mother countries and wait for the processing of claims for authentication of their worth of receiving the protection. However, going back home puts them at risk of kidnapping, death, physical and sexual abuse, recruitment in gangs, and engaging in criminal activities. Besides, the policies enacted by the federal government have aided in lessening the entry of criminals who flee their country in fear of prosecution, and it focuses on curbing political infiltration. Non-profit organizations that enhance the safety and well-being of refugees have gone ahead to challenge these policies in the courts. The federal government must uphold its obligation of providing refuge for individuals fleeing persecution and avoid acts of injustices exerted towards them.

Works Cited

Cervantes, Wendy, and Christina Walker. "Five reasons Trump's immigration orders harm children." Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy (2017).

Kim, Isok, S. Megan Berthold, and Filomena M. Critelli. "Refugees and Asylum Seekers." Trauma and Human Rights. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2019. 221-240.

Mayda, Anna Maria, and Giovanni Peri. "The economic impact of U.S. immigration policies in the Age of Trump." Economics and Policy in the Age of Trump 69 (2017).

Riva, Sara. "Across the border and into the cold: Hieleras and the punishment of asylum-seeking Central American women in the United States." Citizenship studies 21.3 (2017): 309-326.

Trucios-Haynes, Enid, and Marianna Michael. "Mobilizing a Community: The Effect of President Trump's Executive Orders on the Country's Interior." ...