Asylum and "Credible Fear" Issues in U.S. Immigration Policy

Asylum and “Credible Fear” Issues in U.S. Immigration PolicyNotes: In order to be included in this TRAC analysis, the court had to have at least four judges who made 50 ormore asylum decisions in each time period.The disparities were also evident when immigration court decisions were analyzed by the asylumseeker’s country of origin. As Table 2 indicates, TRAC analysis of decisions on PRC asylumseekers continued to show wide disparities in the New York court, ranging from 4% to 74%denial rates. The denial rates of Iraq asylum seekers were the lowest, spanning from zero to 4%,and their variation was also the lowest at 4%. In contrast, the denial rates of Salvadoran asylumseekers were the highest, spanning 90% to 98%, with only a 8% variation. 68Selected IssuesAlthough there are many who would revise U.S. asylum law, those advocating change havedivergent perspectives. Some cite the seemingly inexplicable disparities in asylum approvals ratesand urge broad-based administrative reforms. Others argue that given the religious, ethnic, andpolitical violence in various countries around the world, it has become more difficult todifferentiate the persecuted from the persecutors. Some express concern that U.S. sympathies forthe asylum seekers caught up in the current political uprisings in the Middle East, northern Africa,and South Asia could inadvertently facilitate the entry of terrorists. Others maintain that currentlaw does not offer adequate protections for people fleeing human rights violations or genderbasedabuses that occur around the world. Some assert that asylum has become an alternativepathway for immigration rather than humanitarian protection provided in extraordinary cases. Atthe crux of the issue is the extent to which an asylum policy forged during the Cold War isadapting to the competing priorities and turbulence of the 21 st century. Some of these issues arehighlighted below.U.S. National InterestsSome have asserted that U.S. asylum policy attracts asylum seekers who have weak or bogusclaims and that additional safeguards are needed to curb abuses and protect U.S. nationalinterests. One critic has concluded that the “U.S. asylum system has become the hole in the fencefor millions of dubious claimants—and a major immigration magnet in itself.” Others havemaintained that migration “push” factors, such as rapid population growth, poverty, and politicalinstability in the sending countries of asylum seekers, are factors over which the United States haslittle control. Some have warned of “the ongoing separation of asylum from any grounding in thenational interest” and argued for a serious examination of the forces that propel asylum seekers. 69In contrast, others have asserted that the United States should re-calibrate asylum policy toprovide more protections for asylum seekers, maintaining that it is in the United States’ nationalinterest to set an example. These proponents have expressed a desire for the United States toreaffirm its welcome to those who have fled persecution as well as its commitment tohumanitarian efforts. They have argued that some of the statutory revisions in 1996 and 200568 Ibid.69 David Simcox, Humanitarian Immigration: Third World “Persecution” Swamps the West, Negative PopulationGrowth, NPG Forum Paper, 2004, http://www.npg.org/forum_series/spring04fp.html; and Don Barnett, The ComingConflict Over Asylum: Does America Need a New Asylum Policy?, Center for Immigration Studies, March 2002,http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/back102.html.Congressional Research Service 29