Discrimination Against Asylum Seekers of Low Socioeconomic Status
Asylees are aliens who seek protection in a foreign country due to fear of prosecution. The United States’ Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requires that these fears be based upon an individual’s race, religion, nationality, membership in specific social groups, or political opinion ("Definition of Terms"). Due to various domestic and international laws, the United States is legally obligated to provide the process to apply for asylum to anyone. The nation pledges to “assist [asylees] to achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as possible after arrival” (United States, Office of Refugee Resettlement). However, under the Trump Administration, asylum restrictions have proliferated in an attempt to discourage immigration into the country. These restrictions contribute to the ever-growing fiscal burden that many asylum seekers already face. Despite the seemingly fair process, the United States government discriminates against asylees of low socioeconomic status by making it more costly and risky to enter and remain in the country.
The failure to provide basic necessities for asylum applicants highlights the system’s discrimination against those with little wealth. In the process of applying for asylum in the United States, a refugee may face months of delay due to a new program known as the Migrant Protection Protocol (MPP). As a result of the MPP, implemented under the Trump administration in 2019, refugees at the Mexico-United States border are forced to wait in Mexico for the duration of their proceedings. The DHS claims that this policy will “reduce threats to life ... and public safety while ensuring that vulnerable populations receive the protections they need” ("Migrant Protection"). Despite the well-intended goal of discouraging false asylum claims, this program actually pushes many individuals who genuinely need protection further from asylum. Forcing refugees to live in a foreign location without any oversight, provisions, or protections highlights the discrimination against poorer individuals who cannot obtain resources for themselves.
In 2020, the purported chief of DHS, Chad Wolf, issued two rules that would harm asylees’ ability to work while they wait for approval of their application. Refugees must apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) to legally work in the United States. However, the Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants rule delays an asylum seekers’ ability to apply for an EAD until “365 calendar days from the date their asylum applications are received” (United States, Department of Homeland Security 38532). This rule bars asylees from finding work to support themselves and their family and consequently discriminates against those who rely heavily on new American work opportunities. The lack of a stable source of income means these individuals cannot pay for an attorney or even support themselves. The DHS claims this rule will “improve and streamline the asylum system, so that those with bona fide asylum claims can have their claims decided quickly” (United States, Department of Homeland Security 38544). However, the rule fails to address the fiscal needs that low-income asylees have.
In addition, the Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum Applicant Related Form I–765 Employment Authorization Applications rule removes a provision which states that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must grant or deny an EAD within 30 days from the date in which an asylum applicant files the initial form (United States, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS 37502). This rule increases the time it takes to process the applications from the maximum 30 days to around 60 days. They claim that eliminating the 30-day provision allows them to “maintain realistic case processing times” and “address national security and fraud concerns” (United States, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS, 37502). However, this delay may interfere with applicants’ survival in a foreign country and workforce. In the plaintiff complaint in the Casa de Maryland Inc. v. Chad Wolf case, the Latino and immigration advocacy organization CASA de Maryland argues that “applicants ... harmed by these rules will be vulnerable to homelessness, hunger, inadequate healthcare, and exploitation” (Casa de Maryland). As the plaintiff highlights, those who cannot afford to wait for an EAD are deprived of the opportunity for employment and therefore a stable source of income. As a result, they may be forced to abandon their asylum claims or dismiss attorneys. Because this law only affects those who cannot survive without an immediate job, it disproportionately impacts those of low socioeconomic status.
To date, there has been no direct fee that asylees must pay to seek refuge in the United States. However, under the Trump Administration, a new policy was proposed to implement a $50 fee on the application. In a memorandum written in April 2019, President Donald Trump claims the United States should propose regulations which set a fee for asylum applications (Trump). Although this proposal was ultimately rejected, it reveals that the American asylum system favors those who can afford to pay this additional cost. It can also be argued that this fee bars certain asylum seekers, especially those that lack financial stability, from applying.
These policies reveal that the process of applying for refuge in the United States presents further difficulties for those who cannot afford it. It is significantly more difficult and risky for individuals of low socioeconomic status to apply for asylum in the United States under these laws. Even though some policies may intend for the best for the government and American population, it sacrifices the lives and wellness of asylees who can not afford to buffer new costs. These rules lead to discussions on how to aid asylees while keeping peace in the nation.
References
Casa de Maryland v. Wolf Complaint. 21 July 2020, asylumadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Casa-de-Maryland-v.-Wolf-Complaint. pdf. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.
"Definition of Terms." Homeland Security, www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/data-standards-and-definitions/definition-terms#8. Accessed 8 Dec. 2020.
"Migrant Protection Protocols." Homeland Security, 24 Jan. 2019, www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols. Accessed 9 Dec. 2020.
Trump, Donald J. "Presidential Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System." 29 Apr. 2019, www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-memorandum-additional-measure s-enhance-border-security-restore-integrity-immigration-system/. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020. Memo.
United States, Department of Homeland Security. Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants. Code of Federal Regulations, section 208 and 274a, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-06-26/pdf/2020-13544.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.
---, Office of Refugee Resettlement. The Refugee Act. Federal Register, 29 Aug. 2012, www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/the-refugee-act#:~:text=The%20Refugee%20Act%20of% 201980,arrival%20in%20the%20United%20States.&text=AUTHORIZATION%20OF% 20APPROPRIATIONS%20FOR%20REFUGEE%20ASSISTANCE. Accessed 13 Dec. 2020.
---, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS. Removal of 30-Day Processing Provision for Asylum ApplicantRelated Form I–765 Employment Authorization Applications. Code of Federal Regulations, section 208, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-06-22/pdf/2020-13391.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec. 2020.