Although Americans widely believe that the country’s immigration laws require an overhaul, the federal government has been unable to implement comprehensive reforms for the last decade. People migrated to the US in the past attributable to similar reasons as in the present times. The major reasons for immigration encompass joining other close relatives, work, and seeking asylum occasioned by violence, warfare, and other disasters in the home country. There are more than 45 million immigrants in the US, which represents approximately 15 percent of the country’s population. Unlawful aliens have taken advantage of asylum gaps at a worrying rate. The Department of Homeland Security believe that there has been an approximately 2000 percent rise in the number of aliens and has no choice but to let them continue staying in the country regardless of their lack of legal rights to asylum (Bruno 1). The lack of comprehensive reforms to the immigration laws in the United States could be attributed to policymakers facing a recurrent challenge to establish an effective and fair system that can authorize lawful asylum requests while deterring and rejecting illegal ones.
Asylum has been an intricate segment of immigration laws and policies in the US. Although most of the recent arguments concerning asylum have centered on attempts by the Trump regime to tackle illegal immigration at the southern boundary, the problem is deeply entrenched and has been an issue of discussion for a long time. As initially enforced, the Immigration and Nationality Act that was enacted in 1952 failed to include any matter on asylum. Nevertheless, inefficient asylum regulations have been added and later amended by a sequence of successive laws. Presently, the Act seeks to offer asylum to aliens who requested for such reprieve in line with appropriate directives and is found to be a refugee (Bruno 13). It describes a refugee as any individual outside the nation of origin and is incapable of or reluctant to resume home anchored in oppression or well-grounded fears of maltreatment based on religion, ethnic background, nationality, or political perspective.
According to the present guidelines and laws, aliens living or arriving in the US, irrespective of their immigration position, can request for asylum (with exemptions). A request for asylum is assenting when an alien is present in the US (without removal proceedings) applies to the Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security. To be approved for asylum, all aliens require official assessment on the credibility of their fear of persecution (Bruno 25). The Immigration and Nationality Act affirms that justifiable fear of persecution signifies the existence of considerable possibility. Such a level of significance considers credibility of statements provided by aliens to back their claims in conjunction with other truths establish by immigration officers. People found to have sincere fear may request for asylum during typical exclusion proceedings. The US immigration office does not hold any numerical restriction on asylum provisions.
When an alien’s asylum request is approved, the spouse and children could easily obtain refuge, as dependents. Grants for asylum do not expire although they might be ended under some situations. Following a year of residence within the US as an asylum, an immigrant, the spouse, and their children could obtain legal permanent residence status, dependent on some requirements (Bruno 32). Trump’s regime had embarked on diverse steps that restricted admissibility for asylum. Different legal propositions assert the need for the modification of the Immigration and Nationality Act, elimination of asylum, significant dread of persecution, perky applications, and the identification of a refugee.
The Immigration and Nationality Act maintains that the president has the power to reject admission of aliens if he or she has sufficient proof regarding their entry being unfavorable to the interests of the US. Dependent on provisions of the Act, Trump delivered a sequence of affirmations that limited the admittance of aliens from designated nations rooted on concerns of national security and the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on iterative practices that are also referred to as the Travel Ban, President Trump prepared for the elimination of broad groups of nationals from some countries, mainly the Muslim ones (Smith and Santamaria 2). Although conditional on legal dispute, the US Supreme Court asserted that the limitations were within the authority of the President. Trump also proceeded to make further announcements limiting the admittance of foreigners from other regions and nations to curb the spread of the Coronavirus Disease, although he later withdrew many of the restrictions.
At the beginning of year 2021, President Biden cancelled the Travel Ban limitations and asserted that the Department of State officials should undertake the issuance of visa to immigrants from the selected countries. However, anchored in the variant virus strains of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Biden later barred the entry of aliens who had recently been to regions such as Brazil, Ireland, the UK, and South Africa (Smith and Santamaria 1). This move is dependent on certain exemptions (for example, legal permanent residence or foreign government representatives). The issue of immigration policies has been complicated by the unstable and continually changing regulations coupled with different federal agencies being tasked to undertake the apprehension, administering, and deportation of unaccompanied alien children.
The United States Customs and Border Protection apprehends, administers, and initially takes care of the unaccompanied alien children arrested along the boundaries. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement then moves such children from the custody of the Customs and Border Protection to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, where they are temporarily sheltered before being assigned sponsors, particularly family members, pending immigration trial. Many unaccompanied alien children request asylum and the Citizenship and Immigration Services arbitrates such preliminary appeals (Kandel 1). Additionally, the Executive Office of Immigration Review under the Department of Justice carries out immigration issues that enable the presentation of testimonies. During such proceedings, immigration boards establish whether the unaccompanied alien children qualify for reprieve that permit them to stay in the US or not. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement is tasked with the repatriation the children whose asylum applications are rejected.
President Biden’s regime has strengthened federal endeavors to hasten the removal of unaccompanied alien children out of the Customs and Border Protection’s border facilities. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has sought the control of earlier utilized and provisional facilities to enhance its system of state-approved shelters. Temporary establishments are characteristically utilized for a few months to cater to the unexpected rise in unaccompanied alien children apprehensions (Kandel 3). Additional government initiatives encompass cancellation of permissible and biometric data that some authorities affirm that they discourage noncitizens or unlicensed individuals from supporting unaccompanied alien children. Other endeavors include the authorization of the operators of the Office of Refugee Resettlement to pay the transportation charges for some children and resumption of the Central American Minors plan.
President Bidens’s administration has left unchanged most of Trump’s COVID-19 associated entry limitations for foreigners who had recently been to countries such as Iran and China. Biden’s government has annulled the entry restrictions that seek the protection of American employees by excluding some immigrants. However, the government is yet to implement similar entry hindrances affecting the concerns of some nonimmigrants (Smith and Santamaria 4). In the meantime, at least a single federal district court has prohibited the government from enforcing some outlined limitations to aliens in the pendency of lawsuit. The court affirmed that the law does not allow broad authority for the interruption of entry for purely national economic rationales whenever there are no concerns of national security.
Asylum has been a complicated segment of immigration regulations and policies in the United States. Although most of the current arguments regarding asylum have centered on endeavors by the Trump regime to tackle illegal immigration at the southern borderline, the problem is deeply rooted. When an asylum request is accepted, the alien’s spouse and children could simply obtain refuge, as dependents. The Immigration and Nationality Act upholds that the president has the authority to reject admission of aliens based on sufficient proof regarding their entry being negative to the interests of the US. Although Americans extensively believe that the country’s immigration laws need an overhaul, the federal government has been unable to implement all-inclusive reforms for the last decade. The lack of effective reforms to the immigration laws in the US could be attributed to policymakers facing a persistent challenge to establish a powerful and fair system that can approve lawful asylum requests while deterring and rejecting illegitimate ones.
Bruno, Andorra. “Immigration: U.S. Asylum Policy.” Congressional Research Service, 2019, Web.
Kandel, William. “Increasing Numbers of Unaccompanied Alien Children at the Southwest Border.” Congressional Research Service, 2021, Web.
Smith, Hillel, and Kelsey Santamaria. “Recent White House Actions on Immigration.” Congressional Research Service, 2021, Web.