Current law allows migrants to elevate an asylum claim at any lawful port of entry to the US, as well as between valid ports of enter where traversing to the US is illegal.
The Immigration and Nationality Act
states that anyone who arrives in the US “whether or not at a designated port of arrival” are eligible for asylum if he or she has a “well-founded anxiety of persecution on account of race, belief, nationality, the members in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
Yet another part of the law devotes Attorney General Jeff Sessions the leeway to regulate which offenses “will be considered to be a crime, ” in which case asylum is not available.
How precisely the rule will be tailored and whether it will include any exceptions remains unclear .
But there are also international pact obligations that require the US to treat asylum seekers in ways that comport with international human rights and refugee protections, including not barring their ability to apply for asylum.
The UN Refugee Convention countries
: “The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, arriving directly from a region where “peoples lives” or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or operate in their territory without authorization, they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entering or presence.”
However, there is a part of the law that describes asylum as discretionary — something Sessions has already signaled he’s looking to expand on in recent months .
Earlier this month, Sessions reinterpreted asylum law
to make asylum substantially more difficult to qualify for. In his opinion, Sessions suggested that immigration judges could consider factors like entering the country illegally against their discretionary ability to grant asylum, potentially a road map for the new regulation.
The thinking behind such a plan to limit asylum is consistent with views expressed by many Trump administration officials who — when facing the intense backlash over the breakup of migrant families at the southwest margin — have emphasized that asylum-seekers should go to valid ports of entry.
“We have a lawful system to enter the country even as their own families. It’s not a crime if you enter the country at the ports of entry, ” Sessions mentioned Monday in Nevada.
“We’re talking about admissions out in the deserts, remote fields, dangerous areas, people bringing children, ” he added. “That should not be happening as it is in the United States.”
Some experts tell placing such additional burdens on an asylum seeker — especially as many of them don’t have access to a lawyer and are not given one by the government — could be prohibitive for many .
Sessions has broad power
As us attorney general, Sessions has broad legal authority over asylum process .
His controversial decision
earlier this month defines a high bar for victims of domestic or gang violence to qualify for asylum.
The government of the home country must not only going to be able or unwilling to help the victims, he said, but also “the applicant must show that the governmental forces condoned the private activities or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims.”
Read more: https :// www.cnn.com/ 2018/06/ 29/ politics/ trump-administration-asylum-draft-limit/ index.html