Representatives Linda Sanchez and Bob Menendez formally introduced the 2021 U.S Citizenship Act in February 2021. If passed, the act would establish an additional path to citizenship for immigrants in the United States and create a roadmap to lawful permanent residency for DACA recipients, which the DACA Act of 2012 did not include.
The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act would create a new residency status called the lawful prospective immigrant visa. Undocumented immigrants would apply for this status and, if approved, would receive work authorization, protection from deportation, social security benefits, and the ability to travel outside the United States. The act will also grant permanent resident status to non-citizens, including DACA recipients, immigrants with temporary protected status, or those who have worked in agricultural labor.
Employment Reform
The bill would make the current employment cap for immigration more flexible. The Immigration Act of 1990 allowed for 140,000 green cards to be distributed per year. This act would allow the Department of Homeland Security to adjust the yearly cap of employment-based visas based on the macroeconomic conditions of the United States, rather than continuing to keep the annual cap at 140,000. Additionally, it would reintegrate unused visas from the previous year into the yearly cap, and make all unused visas since 1992 available. This would make 157,000 employment-based visas available. Due to annual limits, these visas often go unused. The bill would ensure that these leftover employment visas would be distributed and used.
The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act seeks to separate employment classes from the yearly employment visa cap. For instance, it aims to allow students in STEM fields that hold an F-1 visa to apply for permanent residency upon receiving their degree instead of having them apply for employment visas. The Center for American Progress found that increasing employment visas could generate 1.7 trillion dollars in the next decade. However, the Bipartisan Policy Center believes that although the bill increases the visa cap, it does not adequately benefit high-skilled immigrants, who are needed for the post-COVID-19 economic recovery.
Creation of the Lawfully Protected Immigrants Status
The 2021 U.S Citizenship Act would create a class of Lawfully Protected Immigrants (LPI) which would affect 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families. To be eligible, undocumented individuals must have been physically present in the U.S on or before January 1st, 2021. Immigrants who were first responders or were performing essential critical labor services during COVID-19, temporary agricultural workers, and recipients with temporary protected status are also eligible to be a part of the LPI class. The LPI class provides privileges such as being able to remain in the U.S lawfully, being eligible for work authorization, social security benefits, and travel in and out of the United States.
The Heritage Foundation believes that the LPI status would encourage more undocumented immigrants to illegally enter the United States. It sets a precedent that the United States will provide a path to citizenship and protection for people who choose to enter the United States illegally, making it unfair for those who choose to enter the United States lawfully. They believe that the January 1st, 2021 residency requirement can be hard to enforce since legal documents proving their residency can be forged or tampered.
Provides a Better Path to Permanent Residence
The act would establish an expedited path to citizenship for DACA recipients, undocumented farmworkers, and holders of temporary protected status. DACA recipients must prove that they entered the U.S when they were younger than 18 and earned a high school diploma or GED. Males over 18 who have volunteered for the selective service also qualify. If a male over 18 years old volunteered for the selective service, they must have either earned a Bachelor’s degree (or higher) or demonstrated earned income for at least three years.
President Biden believes this act will modernize the immigration system and provide a “roadmap” to the permanent residency of undocumented individuals already in the United States. Moreso, it would give a path to citizenship for DACA recipients stuck in limbo since the DACA program currently does not provide one. The bill will also change the wording of immigration laws to no longer use the term “alien” when referring to undocumented individuals but instead opt for the term non-citizen. This word has a neutral connotation, in an attempt to use more inclusive language.
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez believes that this act will prioritize keeping families together. The act will eliminate discrimination in the immigration system as it creates a new definition of spouse to be inclusive of same-sex relationships. A new definition will allow lawful residents to sponsor their partners for immigration regardless of their sexual orientation. The bill will automatically extend citizenship to children with at least one U.S citizen parent regardless of the biological relationship to that parent. This automatic citizenship will change the “jus sanguinis” or birthright citizenship status that has been upheld since 1934, in which a child needs to have a biological connection to the parent, providing that the parents are married.
On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation believes that this act would impose a financial burden on American taxpayers, as the act would allow the Attorney General to appoint a government-funded attorney for undocumented immigrants facing deportation. In addition, they argue that this process could be costly, especially if a case goes to trial. Also, they argue that the $25 application fee surcharge for an immigration counsel is minimal when compared to the attorney fees.
This brief was originally published on October 6, 2021 by Jocelyn Boudreau. It was updated and republished by Olivia Schroeder on July 28, 2022.
Migrants, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers
In the United States, a refugee is defined as a person “who has fled their country because they are at risk of serious human rights violations and persecution” without their home government being able, or willing, to protect them. Refugees are registered with international agencies and undergo a background check to ensure they meet specified requirements. Asylum seekers apply for asylum at a U.S. port of entry, and are not guaranteed protections or aid until their background is verified and it is confirmed that they fled persecution in their home counties. “Migrant” is an umbrella term used to describe any person who has left their home country. This includes asylum seekers, economic migrants, or those fleeing natural disasters.
Crisis at the Southern Border
Statistics on encounters, expulsions, and apprehensions at the border form a holistic impression of the events at the southern border.
Encounters are measured by the number of migrants coming in contact with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at the border. Encounters gauge how many people attempt to cross, but do not reflect successful crossings. According to the Associated Press, border encounters reached about 75,000 in December 2020, the final month of President Trump’s term, and surpassed 172,000 in March 2020 under President Biden. 71 percent of encounters recorded in February 2021 were single-adult encounters, but family encounters are rising: families and minors comprised more than 40 percent of encounters in March. To officially seek asylum, migrants make their claim to the first CBP or ICE official they encounter. Alternatively, they may submit an application for an asylum grant, followed by an employment authorization while they await their hearing.
Apprehensions and expulsions both follow from encounters, but result in different outcomes that project a more complete picture of the border situation. When a migrant(s) is apprehended, they are admitted to the United States to be placed in custody to await their hearing. If a migrant is not apprehended, they are not granted entry into the US and face expulsion. Expulsion involves being sent back to either their home country or the last country of transit by CBP and ICE agents. The percentage of expulsions dropped from 92% in July 2020 to 47% in July 2021. An influx of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers arriving at the Southern border led President Trump to issue a national emergency declaration in 2019. Trump’s executive action allowed about $8 billion in funds from several sources to be allocated towards border security measures. The funding was intended to act as a budget for constructing a border wall between Mexico and the United States. Combining Treasury Department and Department of Defense drug forfeiture funds with military construction and Congressionally-delegated budgets, the Trump administration gathered enough money for 234 miles of border wall.
Before the barrier was finished, the emergency declaration was reversed by the Biden administration in January 2021. President Biden halted the construction of the wall and terminated contracts made with private construction agencies. However, there is a question as to whether Biden has the right to redirect the funds for the construction of the border wall as military funds were involved in Trump’s budget. As thousands of migrants attempt to enter the United States from its Southern border, the issue has developed into an argument of whether the crisis lies in the overwhelming amount of immigrant arrivals, or the conditions from which they seek refuge.
The Biden Administration
Immigration reform was a major priority for the new Biden administration. So far, Biden has focused on rebuilding the current immigration system. The administration implemented a policy that does not deny any unaccompanied minor when seeking asylum. President Biden blocked the expulsion of unaccompanied minors at the southern border, which was previously in practice under the Trump Administration when Title 42 was put into place. The CDC stated that they recognized the “unique vulnerabilities” of unaccompanied minors and that the expulsion of these migrants isn’t warranted to protect public health standards. Title 42 allowed for the expulsion of migrants when the pandemic began in 2020. However, the policy can still be used to expel single migrants and families of migrants. The Build Back Better Act passed the House in November of 2021 which allows seven million immigrants to apply for protection from deportation, work permits, and drivers licenses. This is a step away from Trump-era policies which focused on securing the border and stricter immigration policies. President Biden has proposed an eight year path to citizenship for immigrants. The policy will allow for the estimated 10.5 million undocumented immigrants who already reside in the US a pathway to legal status. Undocumented migrants would be able to apply for temporary legal status and green cards if/when they pass a criminal background check. According to the White House, the benefits to Biden’s plan are “ [the modernization] of the immigration system, [prioritizing] keeping families together, growing our economy, responsibly managing the border with smart investments, addressing the root causes of migration from Central America, and ensuring that the United States remains a refuge for those fleeing persecution.” However, a benefit of Trump’s plans for immigration is that the US would not need to take all of these steps and documentation wouldn’t be necessary if the border was more secure, unauthorized immigrants were deported, and not given asylum-seeking status.
Public Health Concerns
In the months leading up to the coronavirus outbreak, CBP and ICE practices sparked outrage amongst human rights activists. Border police detained migrants outdoors, in a fenced-off area under an El Paso bridge, when facilities became overcrowded. Although CBP officials ended this practice in April 2019, lack of space and supplies continued to be an issue at border facilities. An exposé detailing inadequate conditions in a Clint, Texas CBP facility revealed a trend apparent in many detention centers. Migrants were held in small spaces without proper nutrition or sanitation; lights left on 24 hours a day or no electricity at all; cold temperatures with no blankets, pillows, or beds; no running water and no private restrooms.
Under these conditions, even mild contagions spread with ease. Following the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, CBP facilities gained attention as catalysts for spreading the virus. Of the nearly 40,000 migrants detained since the beginning of the pandemic, 78 tests were administered, and many were positive for COVID-19. It was also revealed that positive and symptomatic detainees were not isolated from other migrants, exposing thousands to the risk of contracting the virus. Title 42, a Trump-era policy which is still in use, was put into place in an attempt to stop the spread of the virus in holding facilities. The policy will be reviewed every sixty days in regards to the spread of the coronavirus. Under the legislation, anyone suspected of bringing a communicable disease into the US to all land and coastal entry points is prohibited from entering the country.
The effects of the pandemic have impacted the rates of migration across the US-Mexico border. As the Biden Administration has not taken the same hardline approach to border security, some have raised concerns that migrants are “encouraged” to migrate into the United States.
Expelled to Danger
In addition to health concerns, migrants face dangers in the territory surrounding the border. A Trump-era policy, known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, mandated that migrants seeking to enter the United States were to await their court hearings within Mexico, or be sent back to their home country to wait. Previously, the asylum process once took a few months, but now it can take two to five years to complete. The Biden Administration briefly stopped the“Remain in Mexico” policy, but it was reinstated in December of 2021 after a Supreme Court ruling in its favor.
Endangerment Under Government Watch
A 2014 complaint filed on behalf of 116 children detailed accounts of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse in addition to denial of adequate food, water, and sanitation in holding facilities at the border. According to the document, 80 percent of children reported these consistent offenses. The Biden Administration, as mandated by US anti-trafficking laws, has been transferring non-Mexican minors to shelters overseen by the government. This policy has also resulted in minors spending less time in holding facilities than they did during the Trump Administration.
These human rights violations have spanned multiple years, and multiple presidential administrations. Today, the Biden administration still manages overcrowded migrant facilities, especially in trying to maintain social distancing measures to minimize spreading COVID-19.
The Biden Administration is seeking to send unaccompanied migrant children to live with relatives or sponsor families, and plans to use convention centers near the border for CBP operations in order to decongest the current facilities. This new policy differed from the “Zero Tolerance Policy” of the Trump Administration which did not allow families to reconnect. As of 2021, Biden has reversed this specific process and many, but not all, families have been reunited.
Politicization of the Crisis
Among US politicians, there are two lines of thought when assessing the crisis at the Southern border. On one hand, some progressives believe giving any funds to CBP and ICE operations condones the inhumane treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers. Designating money to these agencies permits the continuation of unsafe, unsanitary detention centers. However, removing all, or most, funding does not ensure that conditions will improve. On the other hand, there is the “smart money” group that advocates for strategic designation of funds. This sect sees the issue as an inefficient use of resources that cannot be solved by rescinding the entire budget. In a system that has been suffering from a severe lack of resources, removing any chance of providing necessities to migrants will not solve the problems these agencies face.
There is also debate surrounding the origins of the crisis at the border. Some believe the issue is the volume of asylum seekers, and seek to increase funding for CBP and ICE operations to address the influxes. Others believe the core of the problem is the environment which produces asylum seekers. They want to designate more funds to aiding Central and South American countries experiencing regime changes and political violence.
Jus soli, or birthright citizenship, is the idea that those born in the U.S. are automatically considered citizens of the United States regardless of their parents’ citizenship. While birthright citizenship is often attributed to the 14th Amendment , the policy has recently sparked debate in political and legal circles, in part due to Donald Trump’s promise to issue an executive order ending birthright citizenship for those born to unauthorized parents during his presidency.
The Birthright Citizenship Act, introduced into the House of Representatives in 2021, would amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in turn, who is eligible for citizenship. An individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when the United States government has the right to enforce its governing laws against a person. Under the Birthright Citizenship Act, automatic citizenship would only be granted to those who have a parent who is a:
U.S. citizen or national
lawful resident residing in the U.S.
foreign national performing active service in the Armed Forces.
While the bill would not impact the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the potential enactment date, it would mean all future children born in the U.S. to parents of both unauthorized immigrants and immigrants in the U.S. on a temporary visa are not guaranteed citizenship.
Major Legislation and Court Cases Relating to Birthright Citizenship
The 14th Amendment: The 14th amendment is a piece of Reconstructionist Era legislation which ensures due process and equal protection under the law as well as citizenship for all those “born or naturalized” in the U.S. The amendment granted citizenship to groups previously excluded from this right, most notably African Americans, but some argue that the precedent should not extend to children of undocumented immigrants, as, at the time of the amendment’s passage, there was little context for illegal immigration.
United States v Wong Kim Ark: In this 1898 Supreme Court case, the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the United States, despite the fact that his parents could not become citizens due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, opponents of birthright citizenship argue this statute cannot apply to those with unauthorized parents because although Wong Kim’s parents were not citizens, they were documented. Opponents also point to the Slaughterhouse cases, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” was intended to exclude children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, regardless of their birthplace.
Arguments in Favor of Birthright Citizenship
Advocates of existing birthright citizenship policy consider the practice to be a cornerstone of the United States as a nation of immigrants, and point to the practical and legal complications if birthright citizenship were to be restricted. One major difficulty is that many of those who gain citizenship due to their birthplace do not have citizenship to another nation and therefore cannot be deported as they lack the right of entry to their parents’ country of origin. As a result, many argue that altering birthright citizenship would create a legal crisis for those born into this situation and their family members. Additionally, following former President Trump’s promise to issue an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, many were quick to point to the 30 other countries who also offer citizenship to those born in their nation regardless of parent’s legal status. In countries without this practice, citizenship is often determined by descent and critics argue this is nearly impossible in a diverse nation like the U.S. Furthermore, critics of the act argue that current U.S. birthright citizenship policy enables children of unauthorized parents to receive the benefits of citizenship—including federal aid, civic rights, and legal protection—and they can use these resources to support the rest of their family networks. Above all, critics of the move to diminish this right view the policy as a staple of not only American immigration but American identity, as they argue birthright citizenship facilitates a sense of nationalism.
Arguments Against Birthright Citizenship
Those who support the Birthright Citizenship Act argue that current birthright citizenship policy perpetuates illegal immigration, as some believe that unauothrized parents may use their child with automatic citizenship to gain legal status themselves. The derogatory term “anchor babies” refers to this notion, and proponents of this idea point to statistics such as the Migration Policy Institute’s estimate that 4.1 million children had at least one undocumented parent in 2016. Additionally, opponents of existing birthright citizenship policy point to the net fiscal burden of unauthorized immigrants, which the NAS estimates to be $65,292 per immigrant. They argue that while unauthorized immigrants often have access and utilize public services like education, social care, and law enforcement, they do not have the same tax burdens that legal citizens do, and therefore citizens face higher taxes due to unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.
Conclusion
A variation of this act has been introduced to numerous sessions of Congress beginning in 2007, and while the 2021 version is unlikely to pass, it is indicative of a larger debate surrounding citizenship and legal status in this country. Controversy continues to surround the question of birthright citizenship’s application to those born in U.S. territories or out of wedlock, and questioning the legitimacy of an opponent’s citizenship due to their birthplace remains a popular smear tactic.
What is the Special Immigrant program for Afghans and Iraqis?
The Special Immigrant Visa program for Afghan and Iraqi nationals is a set of two visa programs: SI visas, for Iraqi and Afghan translators, and SQ visas, for Iraqis and Afghans employed on behalf of the United States government or the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There have been a total of 3,996 immigrants that have obtained SI visas and 105,477 immigrants that have obtained SQ visas.
The SI visa program was first signed into law in 2006 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized the issuing of up to 50 visas per year to those who qualify (called principals).
Who qualifies for this program?
SQ visas were issued through two Special Immigrant Visa programs for Iraqi nationals and Afghan nationals. The requirements to qualify are almost the same for both programs. The program for Iraqi nationals was signed into law with the NDAA of 2008, and for Afghan nationals the following year as part of the Afghan Allies Protection Act. The deadline to apply for the Iraqi program was in September, 2014, but the Afghan program will accept applications until December 31, 2023. The remainder of this brief will refer to the Afghan program, as it is the only active program of the two.
To qualify for these programs, one must:
Be a national of Iraq or Afghanistan,
Have been employed for one year by the U.S. government or allied missions
Have received a letter of recommendation, and
Have experienced or be experiencing an “ongoing serious threat” as a result of the previous employment by the United States
What is the process to obtain this visa?
In order to obtain an SQ visa as an Afghan, the USCIS lists five steps:
Apply for Chief of Mission (COM) Approval: This step requires certain documents, including verification of employment by the U.S. government, a letter of recommendation (LoR) from a direct senior supervisor, evidence of Afghan nationality, and a statement of threats received as a result of employment by the United States.
File a Petition with the USCIS: This step requires submitting an I-360 Form, the COM approval, the previous LoR, and a passport copy (and a translation if not in English).
Prepare for Visa Application: After receiving confirmation from the National Visa Center via email, the applicant must fill out more forms in order for the center to process the visa and schedule a visa interview.
Visa Interview: The applicant must attend a personal interview, conducted in English, with all family members applying for visas. Interviews used to be conducted at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, but the embassy suspended operations on August 31, 2021, so any remaining applicants must apply at an embassy or consulate in another country.
Arrival in the United States: From this point on, the process resembles that of refugees entering the United States. Afghan SIV recipients are eligible for the benefits refugees receive, and are resettled in a similar manner.
The process looks mostly the same for an SI visa applicant, except they do not need to complete the COM approval step.
What does this program look like now?
There are many obstacles to applying for SIV status now that the United States has withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban has taken control of the country. Because interviews can no longer be processed in Kabul, many individuals are traveling to other countries like Pakistan in order to apply. Despite the effort it takes to apply, many have nothing to show for it, as over 1,300 SIV applicants were denied from October to December of last year, often for lack of documentation, failure to prove service to the U.S. government, or derogatory information associated with the principal. There are currently 50,000 SIV applications being evaluated, but only 16,515 still remaining slots unless Congress approves more. Applicants also experience lengthy wait times.
The Biden administration recently attempted to ease requirements for SIV applicants, including allowing those who have worked as civil servants or paid for public services under the Taliban regime controlling Afghanistan, either prior to 2001 or after August 15, 2021, to be issued visas. Yet, requirements still remain vague. For example, if an applicant’s LoR was written by a non-U.S. citizen, they are asked to have the letter cosigned by a U.S. citizen, despite that not being listed as a requirement. This added complication makes it harder for SIV applicants to receive visas.
After the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August of 2021, 76,000 Afghans were brought to the United States through Operation Allies Welcome, with over half of those holding or qualifying for SIV status. President Biden issued an order defining Afghanistan as a temporary protected status (TPS) country, which prevents an Afghan national from being removed from the United States and allows them to access employment authorization. However, this does not provide a pathway to legal permanent residence, and the TPS designation is set to expire in November 2023. This leaves half of those brought to the United States without a guarantee of permanent residence outside of applying for asylum, a program with a grant rate of about 14% for the year 2021.
What changes could be made to the SIV program for Afghans?
One possible solution to the limitations of the SIV Afghan program is to pass an adjustment act, which would allow Afghans that do not qualify for SIV status to apply for permanent status after a year of residing in the United States. This kind of program has been implemented previously for refugees from Vietnam, Cuba, and Iraq. The Biden Administration called on congress for a program like this to be included with a recent bill focused on providing aid to Ukraine, but the bill passed without such a program.
Supporters of an “Afghan Adjustment Act” say this program will alleviate the previously mentioned backlog of applications within the SIV program as well as the over one million case backlog in the asylum system, while providing our Afghan partners with a guarantee of permanent status. They also cite the many levels of screening and security vetting that all Afghan immigrants go through prior to entering the United States as proof that it is safe to implement this program.
Critics of an Afghan adjustment act express concern over gaps in the vetting process. One critical lawmaker cited reports from the Department of Defense Inspector General, which state that thousands of Afghans were not screened completely using all of the department’s data prior to arrival in the United States. The lawmaker calls on the Biden Administration to address possible issues with vetting prior to enacting a large readjustment program. A response to mitigate this criticism is that Afghans seeking to adjust their status would be required to undergo additional screening.
The Root Causes Strategy is the Biden administration’s attempt to address the root causes of migration from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. In July of 2021, the administration announced this strategy via executive order to use the private sector, US diplomacy, and foreign assistance programs to work with governments and local organizations in the Northern Triangle. The strategy is made up of five pillars:
Addressing economic insecurity and inequality,
Combating corruption and advancing the rule of law,
Recently, the administration released an update on the Root Causes Strategy on April 19, 2022. Vice President Kamala Harris created the Call to Action initiative, which brings together private sector leaders, and generated $1.2 billion in commitments from companies like Microsoft, Nespresso, and Mastercard who plan to launch projects across the Northern Triangle. Furthermore, the US has sent vaccines, given humanitarian assistance, created the Anti-Corruption Task Force, supported human rights defenders, assisted in increasing security, and supported initiatives for women and local organizations.
Arguments in Support of the Root Causes Strategy
Supporters of the Root Causes Strategy argue that relief alone does not curb migration. The COVID-19 pandemic and weather have exacerbated root causes like corruption, violence, and consequences of climate change, and alleviating the effects of these problems alone does not solve them. Others also say that the use of the private sector allows for more economic opportunity in the region. They claim that US and international investment boosts economic activity and forces regional govts to create conditions to attract investment. This ultimately improves conditions for citizens.
Arguments Against the Root Causes Strategy
However, some critics say that the US avoids discussing state-sponsored violence, US intervention, the negative effects of neoliberalism, and historical land inequality when tackling root causes. Therefore, they denounce the program’s dependence on private sector investment, citing that this structure has not worked in the past. Instead, the strategy should focus on labor rights, benefits, and better wages for people instead of corporations. Additionally, they contend that Biden and Harris need a more localized approach. Often, when money goes to local and national governments in the Northern Triangle, which are usually corrupt, it does not end up helping people. Therefore, these critics argue that more money must go to grassroots, faith-based, and local organizations as they are best positioned to curb the root causes of migration.
On the other hand, other critics insist that the Root Causes Strategy focuses too much on the “push” factors of Central American migration, like limited women’s rights and climate change, instead of the “pull” factors. For example, they argue that assistance to single-parent households in Central America incentivizes men to migrate to the US, and that combating climate change is a waste of money because most migrants come for economic reasons. They recommend policies that strengthen border security and migrant detentions. They also claim that the US government can only make modest changes to the root causes of poverty because Central Americans must change social attitudes about education and corruption. Furthermore, they argue that giving money to community organizations is not the most effective because these groups are unelected, unmonitored, and cannot be held accountable.
In 2019 alone, 2,000 natural disasters displaced roughly 24.9 million people worldwide. By 2050, 150 to 200 million people will likely be displaced as a result of “climate shocks” – extreme weather events caused by climate change that impact the durability and sustainability of communities. While most displaced populations will migrate within their home country, the number of international migrants is projected to increase as climate change tests countries’ resiliency through the duration of the 21st century.
Sea level rise as a result of global temperature increase poses an extreme risk of flooding to those living in low-altitude and coastal areas. In Bangladesh, one of a handful of countries that have already begun to experience climate migration, the poorest citizens tend to live in the low-lying coastal zones that are most impacted by flooding. Bangladesh’s susceptibility to drought, clean water shortages, cyclones, floods, and coastal and delta erosion cause an estimated 500,000 people to migrate to urban areas every year. The vast majority of internal migrants arrive in Dhaka, Gazipur, and Narayanganj, causing these cities to reach abnormally high population densities, decreasing living standards. Cities like these have a limited capacity for providing clean water, shelter, and employment to hundreds of thousands of climate migrants fleeing the flooded coasts.
Climate processes such as water scarcity, sea level rise, drought, salinization, and eutrophication (leaching of chemicals into water sources) are major causes of forced migration. Climate processes involve years of shifting environments, but climate events like flooding, storms, and wildfires, can degrade entire habitats in a matter of days and impact entire populations for decades. Physical barriers such as seawalls, levees, and dams provide temporary relief, but implementing long-term solutions to climate change is the only way to subdue forced climate migration. Many countries’ governments, however, do not recognize these climate processes as being directly related to climate change, which limits their willingness and ability to implement long-term solutions.
The existence of climate change is undisputed by 97% of the scientific community, but its effects on the human population are still argued. Complexities at the intersection between climate change, conflict, and displacement allow for debate over whether climate migration is a solution or a problem itself. Some scientists have referred to climate migration as an “adaptation strategy” because it presents itself as a temporary solution to habitat change and destruction. Others argue that as climate change affects the availability of natural resources like drinkable water, climate migrants will arrive in urban areas that do not have the means to provide for the increase in population.
Historically, climate migration has largely taken place internally, leading to the prioritization of national protocols. Nations will be forced to address climate migration domestically as well as internationally. Bangladesh has put in place a Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF), which allocates $70 million (USD) to fund government projects that will mitigate the adverse effects of internal climate migration as well as prevent communities from reaching the point of forced migration. Future projections of displaced people led the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2011 to determine that an expected influx of immigrants to the U.S was a result of water scarcity and consequential conflicts resulting from resource depletion. Migration conditions resulting from climate shocks and processes have exacerbated conflict and instability in countries, resulting in more severe political and humanitarian issues.
Resiliency plans are one of the key steps in addressing climate migration. One proposed strategy is to limit the climate change drivers that are pushing populations out of their homes, namely greenhouse gas emissions. However, both financial constraints and the time it takes for governments to implement strategies that could potentially reduce emissions and slow the process of climate change are major limitations, and many scientists believe that time is running out. A possible solution would be to instead focus funding on facilitating climate migration. Studies show that planned climate migration leads households to become more resilient in the face of climate shocks, whereas forced and sudden climate migration tends to lead to household vulnerability. Bangladesh’s CCTF plan works by providing the resources for households to understand their local risk of climate shocks, as well as by creating avenues that assist in planning migration ahead of time. This strategy may significantly reduce the need for emergency migration and post-disaster relief efforts.
Climate change disproportionately impacts countries and communities, which are historically marginalized, including non-industrial states which are the least responsible for the changing environment. Unfortunately, addressing the issue of forced migration does not tackle concerns over resource scarcity, which these disadvantaged countries will likely suffer from the most. Confronting the challenges associated with climate change and climate migration will require more international cooperation and resiliency planning that takes into consideration those countries that do not have the resources to prepare for the future.
This brief was originally published by Megan Garcia on February 9, 2022. It was updated and republished by Peyton Singletary on June 21, 2022.
Immigration policy is an area of policy that consistently changes with a shift in administration, illustrated most recently by former President Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The Obama-Biden Administration oversaw a major transformation from the previous Bush Administration. President Obama was known to be the “deporter in chief” due to his immigration policy choices.
Campaign Platform and Early Actions
When Biden ran for office in 2020, his platform championed an immigration policy that consisted mainly of modernizing America’s immigration system. As stated on his presidential website, he planned to create a system that was more welcoming to immigrants, primarily by taking action to undo Trump’s policies. He also stated that legislation under the Obama-Biden Administration that removed families from one another must be changed.
When Biden first took office, he once again promised to reverse Trump-era immigration restrictions by boosting refugee admissions and providing deportation relief for unauthorized immigrants coming to the United States as children. However, Biden initially kept the Trump Administration’s FY2021 refugee ceiling—15,000—before bowing to pressure from activists and colleagues in the Democratic party who demanded higher refugee admissions. In FY2021 less than 12,000 refugees were resettled in the US, which the Biden Administration attributes to pandemic-relating complications and the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the refugee resettlement infrastructure. Despite Biden’s major campaign commitments to the legalization of unlawful immigrants and the strengthening of the country’s asylum structure, political opponents and media depict the president’s approach to immigration as stagnant and obtuse.
The Biden Administration also made individuals migrating from Venezuela and Burma eligible for Temporary Protected Status (TPS). TPS allows for and protects a select group of immigrants to live and work in the United States. With the Department of Homeland Security’s reevaluation of other countries, such as Haiti, Yemen, and Somalia, about 427,000 more individuals are eligible for TPS. Biden even proposed a bill titled the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which proposed the establishment of the policies previously mentioned to better maintain migration into the U.S., specifically the bill strived to accomplish a key aspects among many others:
Create a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants
Provide an immigration system that is focused to keep families together
Build upon the budget for immigration enforcement at the border
Improve the immigration courts (backlogs and training)
Reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols
During the current crisis at the Southern Border, U.S. District Court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ordered the reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), or the Remain in Mexico bill, in August. This bill forces asylum seekers, both with and without proper documentation, to stay in Mexico while their claims are processed in the United States immigration courts. This is a shift in policy, because previously asylum applicants resided in the United States while their claims were being considered. Under the Trump administration, the MPP was used to return around 60,000 asylum seekers to Mexico, many of whom were not Mexican but passed through Mexico in order to apply for asylum in the US. One sticking point of the court order to restart the MPP was that the Mexican government had to agree to accept returned asylum seekers. However, the MPP continues to be met with criticism which stems from the prospect of deporting asylum seekers without due process and despite safety measures and an individual’s desire to migrate in the first place. As of December 2nd, the Biden administration has reached a deal with the Mexican government to reimplement the Remain in Mexico program. The program formally begins on the 6th of December 2021, and will start at one border location and expand to seven other cities. However, this agreement comes with several conditions on the behalf of the Mexican government.
Asylum seekers will be able to obtain legal counsel to assist them in making their claim, which is not currently a provision of the US system.
Every applicant waiting in Mexico will receive a decision on their application within 6 months, to avoid an indefinite stay in limbo.
The Northern Triangle region of Central America consists of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. The countries experience overwhelming political, social, and economic difficulties which lead to stratification, poverty, corrupt governance, and an influx in migrants to the United States. Under the Trump Administration, the United States ceased providing development aid to the region in an effort to motivate Northern Triangle governments to take a harder stance against emigration. On February 2, President Biden issued an executive order to address the root causes of migration and corruption within the Northern Triangle. In attacking the source of challenges within the region, the Biden administration hopes to:
The first official piece of U.S. immigration policy was the Nationality Act of 1790, which created eligibility for citizenship by naturalization. From 1790 until the Nationality Act of 1965, U.S. policy prioritized immigrants from European countries, with heavy restrictions on immigration from other regions. Since that act, the immigrant, or foreign-born population, has quadrupled in size. The process to become a naturalized citizen has changed over the years as well. The foreign-born population includes any person who is not a U.S. citizen, including lawful permanent residents, naturalized U.S. citizens, temporary migrants, refugees and asylees, and unauthorized migrants.
Historical Overview of U.S. Immigration Policy
The Nationality Act of 1790
The Nationality Act of 1790 was the first law enacted in United States history that defined who had the ability to become a naturalized citizen. It specifically allowed only “free white persons” who have resided in the U.S. for at least two years the ability to naturalize. The law also limited naturalization to those who were “of good moral character” and were male. Any child of a naturalized citizen under the age of twenty-one could also become a U.S. citizen. The use of the word “alien” when referring to an immigrant was first used in the wording of this act.
Immigration Act of 1864
Also known as An Act to Encourage Immigration, the Immigration Act of 1864 addressed labor shortages in the railroad and mining sectors by making it possible for immigrant workers to come to the United States. Similar to the concept of indentured servitude, immigrant workers would pay for their passage to the U.S. through a labor contract. This law was later repealed in 1868 due to protests by various labor organizations. Around this time in 1850, the U.S. began to survey the population through the census in 1850, and reported that there were 2.2 million immigrants, equaling 10% of the 23.2 million-strong population.
Naturalization Act of 1870
The NaturalizationAct of 1870 expands the requirements defined in the Nationality Act of 1970 to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.” However, other nonwhite immigrant groups such as Asians still could not become fully naturalized citizens.
Series of Exclusionary Acts
The Immigration Act of 1875, also known as the Page Law or the Asian Exclusion Act, prohibited unfree laborers and women brought to the United States for “immoral purposes.” This act was primarily enforced against the Chinese.
Soon after, in 1882, the United States passed the Chinese Exclusion Act that banned Chinese laborers from migrating to the U.S. for the next 10 years. It began the deportation of unauthorized Chinese immigrants and barred naturalization for any Chinese immigrants that had resided in the U.S. after November 16th, 1880. This act was renewed for another 10 years in 1892 with the Geary Act. In 1880, the total foreign-born population equaled 13.3% of the population. In 1902, the exclusion was expanded to those migrating from Hawaii and the Philippines.
The 1891 Immigration Act expanded the groups to be excluded from immigrating to the United States to those who have a contagious disease, practice polygamy, felons, and “all idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge.”
The Immigration Act of 1903, also known as the Anarchist Exclusion Act, banned anarchists, beggars, and importers of prostitutes from immigrating. This was the first exclusionary act that banned immigration based on personal political beliefs.
The 1917 Immigration Act, known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, banned immigration from most Asian and Middle Eastern countries besides the Philippines, a U.S. colony. A literacy test designed to test the migrant’s ability to read English was also introduced.
1921 Emergency Quota Act
Immigration quotas were introduced that allowed 3% of the foreign-born population of a specific nationality (from the 1910 census). Immigration from Asian countries was still barred. This was enacted due to fears of increased immigration soon after World War, and was primarily used to limit immigration from southern and eastern European countries. These quotas did not apply to countries in the Western Hemisphere. Total annual immigration was capped at 350,000. At this point, the total foreign-born population made up 13.2% of the total population which was 108.5 million.
Immigration Act of 1924
Also known as the 1924 National Origins Quota Act, the Immigration Act of 1924 further restricted immigration by reducing the annual immigration cap from 350,000 to 165,000. Additionally, the national origin quota was limited to 2% of the foreign-born population of a specific nationality counted in the 1890 census. This gave immigrants from northern and western European countries a better chance of immigrating. Policymakers wanted to maintain the majority-white ethnic makeup of the population, and at that time people from other parts of Europe were not considered white.. Asian countries continued to be barred from immigrating and a formal restriction on Japanese immigration was added. This act also allowed the U.S. congress to deny entry to Jewish people.
Bracero Agreement in 1942
This agreement between the United States and Mexican governments addressed labor shortages during World War II. Mexican workers were able to sign contracts in the agriculture industry. Many Mexican workers experienced employer abuse and discrimination when participating in the program. This program was in practice until 1964, after reformers pushed for change. The foreign-born population decreased at this time to around 8.8% of the total population which was 132.1 million.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
Also known as the McCarren-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 removed race as a grounds for exclusion for immigration and naturalization, while granting Asain countries a minimum quota of 100 visas per year. The national origins quota was updated to one sixth of 1% of each nationality counted in the 1920 census. Nonetheless, 85% of immigration quotas and visas were given to western and northern European countries.
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962
President Kennedy enacted this act in order to provide medical care, financial issues, educational help, resettlement, and child welfare services specifically for Cuban refugees. It formalized the Cuban Refugee Program to further help those in the Western Hemisphere fleeing oppressive regimes. It was used as a foreign policy strategy to oppose communist governments in the region.
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
The biggest reform to immigration policy, this act finally replaced the national origins quota system built around race and ethnicity restrictions with a system that stressed family reunification and skilled workers. Eastern Hemisphere countries were given 170,000 of the total visas per year and 120,000 were given to Western Hemisphere countries. In 1970 the foreign-born population reached an all time low of just 4.7% of the total population.
Refugee Act of 1980
The Refugee Act of 1980 created a different policy for the admission of refugees into the United States. Through this act, the U.S. adopted the United Nations definition of a refugee: “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” It also established annual refugee quotas which were set by the Executive Branch. The Refugee Act was passed to facilitate immigration from conflict zones, and throughout the Cold War the U.S. prioritized giving refugee status to individuals fleeing conflicts related to communism. This included many Vietnamese and Korean refugees.
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, this reform act created a pathway to residency for unauthorized immigrant workers who have resided in the United States since 1982. The H-2A visa, which allows for the admittance of temporary agricultural workers, was created under this act.
In 1987 President Reagan allowed for minor children of those who were legalized under this act to be protected from deportation. It was estimated that around 3 million immigrants, almost all of Hispanic descent, gained their legal status through this act.
Immigration Act of 1990
This act created H-1B visas and H-2B visas, which were given to highly skilled temporary workers and non-agricultural workers. The immigration cap was raised to 700,000 in 1990 (its highest point in U.S. history) and was lowered to 675,000 in 1995. The Diversity Visa lottery was also introduced, which allowed for people who had been negatively affected by the preference system set into place through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to enter a lottery system for U.S. citizenship. The entry of around 20 million people over the next two decades, the greatest influx of immigrants in the nation’s history, was attributed to this act. This was the last comprehensive immigration reform act passed through congress.
President Barack Obama created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals through an executive action that gave young adults who arrived in the U.S. illegally the opportunity to apply for temporary deportation relief with a two-year work permit. 790,000 people have benefited since the start of the program. However, In July of 2021, a U.S. district court in Texas found that DACA was “illegal” and partially ended the program for first-time recipients.
Muslim Travel Ban
The “Muslim Ban” was implemented in 2017 under an executive order by President Donald Trump’s in an effort to stop travel and refugee settlement from some majority-Muslim countries. Travel was banned for 90 days from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, refugee resettlement was halted for 120 days, and Syrian refugees were banned indefinitely.
U.S. Immigrant Population Today
The first population records for the immigrant population took place in 1850, which reported 2.2 million immigrants making up 10% of the total U.S. population. A 2018 study found that 44.8 million people residing in the United States are foreign-born, which comprises almost one-fifth of the world’s total migrant population, and 13.7% of the U.S. population (totalling 327.1 million). Since American independence, the origin of the immigrant population has shifted from primarily European countries to Western Hemisphere nations like Mexico and Canada.
The landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act and 1980 Refugee Act codified the right of any person who has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of five main factors: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, to seek safety in the United States. These people are known as “forcibly displaced.” Forcibly displaced people in the US fall into two main categories: refugees and asylum-seekers. Refugees apply for entry into the US and are approved for resettlement while outside of the US. Asylum-seekers apply at a port of entry or from inside the country.
The United States recognized the need for refugee and asylum programs following the devastation of World War II and the large population of displaced people. Asylum infrastructure developed throughout the following decades. Modern conflicts have generated large numbers of people seeking asylum which have proved challenging for asylum infrastructure to manage. While the United States once led the world in asylum resettlement, it now faces international scrutiny for human rights violations against asylum seekers.
Historical Overview of US Refugee and Asylum Policy
Pre-1939 System
Asylum-seekers were not distinguished from other immigrants, and were processed using the same criteria and methods. For much of the US’s history there were few restrictions on immigration.
1939-1945 World War II
World War II had a profound impact on the international response to displaced people. An estimated 60 million people were homeless and displaced following the war. This created the need for international recognition for displaced people and a system of relocating them. In addition, many persecuted people fleeing during World War II with credible cause found themselves turned away from safe countries. One example of this was a ship carrying 900 Jews fleeing Germany in 1939, which was sent back to Germany after making port in the US and asking for asylum. More than half of the passengers who returned to Germany were killed. Stories like these created an international desire for asylum processes, so that the fate of those passengers would not be repeated. However, the international community has not always lived up to this goal.
This convention was held by the newly-created United Nations to create protocols for displaced people following World War II. Initially, the protocols only referred to people who had been displaced by events prior to 1951 (i.e. World War II) but the purview was later expanded. Although the title refers specifically to refugees, at this time there was not a distinction between refugees and asylum seekers. The protocols designated several key definitions and laws which applied to all member states:
Defined refugee as a person who has fled their country of origin and is unable or unwilling to return because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
Created the international law that no person should be forced to return to a country where they fear threats to life or freedom, known as refoulement.
Included the note that oftentimes people need to break immigration laws in order to claim asylum, and it is illegal to prosecute them for breaking those laws.
Set out expectations that those granted asylum would have the same right to public services and work authorization as citizens of the host country.
Excluded people who commit serious crimes, including war crimes and crimes against humanity (deliberate acts which cause suffering or death on a large scale), from these protections.
The amendments to the Immigration and Nationalities Act (originally passed in 1952) allowed for the conditional entry of people into the US who could credibly demonstrate they were persecuted or feared persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion.
1967-8 United Nations Protocol and US Accession
This protocol expanded the 1951 Convention policies towards all displaced people, not just ones displaced from World War II. The following year, the United States acceded (in international law, to become party to an agreement or treaty) to the UN Protocol.
The right of every person to claim asylum was established, regardless of the country or region they come from. This means that people could not be discriminated against in the asylum process based on their country of origin.
The Interim Regulations laid out the asylum process in more detail, including that asylum-seekers have the burden of proving they are eligible for asylum, can be granted work authorization while awaiting a decision, and those individuals who are eligible for permanent residency in another country (different from their home country) or who pose a threat to the United States are not eligible for asylum.
The Final Rule was a list of principles and regulations put out by the Immigration and Naturalization Service which established core principles governing how asylum claims should be adjudicated:
Asylum seekers must demonstrate they face continuing or future persecution in their country of origin, not just past persecution.
An individual’s testimony is sufficient basis for demonstrating eligibility for asylum; they do not have to have corroborating evidence so long as their testimony is consistent with what is known by the US government about the conditions in the county.
An individual qualifies for asylum if they demonstrate that they are part of a group which is persecuted based on one of the protected categories (race, religion, nationality, and membership of a particular social group or political opinion), even if they have not personally been persecuted.
The 1990 Immigration Act barred individuals convicted of an “aggravated felony” in the US from seeking asylum.
1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act and Implementation (IIRIA)
This act expanded the definition of someone who could apply for asylum to include individuals who had been victims of “coercive population control” in the form of a forced abortion or sterilization. In addition, it created three limitations on asylum applications:
Applicants must apply for asylum within one year of entering the United States, barring extraordinary circumstances.
Otherwise-eligible applicants can instead be removed to a safe third country “pursuant to an agreement” between the countries, where the individual would be eligible for asylum or similar protection.
Otherwise-eligible applicants who could reasonably be expected to relocate within their own country are not accepted.
The IIRIA also created the “expedited removal” process, which allows individuals arriving without valid documentation to be deported by an immigration officer without legal counsel or an immigration judge. Individuals being interviewed for expedited removal can express the intent to apply for asylum, at which time they are given a credible fear interview by an asylum officer. If the asylum officer thinks they demonstrate that there is a “significant possibility” that they will qualify for asylum, they are able to continue with the asylum process. If not, they are deported. This process is visualized in a diagram in Appendix 2.
After 9/11, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act to consolidate the 22 existing US organizations relating to the issue of “homeland security” into one organization: the Department of Homeland Security. Notably, Immigration and Naturalization Service, which was originally under the Department of Justice, was then incorporated into DHS and split into 3 agencies: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. ICE is the largest investigative agency within DHS, with approximately 20,000 employees in 400 offices. It has 2 divisions: Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement & Removal Operations. The latter is responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws and ensuring the departure of removable immigrants from the United States.
2016 Changes to Asylum Policy
The Department of Justice under the Trump Administration undertook five steps to reduce the number of asylum-seekers admitted into the US.
Metering: metering is a process whereby only a set number of people per day are allowed to begin their asylum claim at a port of entry.
Family Separation: also know as the “Zero Tolerance Policy,” this involved separating parents seeking asylum from their children, to disincentivize asylum applicants and undocumented immigration.
Remain in Mexico: the Migrant Protection Protocols allow the US government to deport asylum-seekers who crossed through Mexico in order to make their asylum claim back to Mexico for the duration of the adjudication process, rather than allowing them to reside in the US.
Narrowing the ground for asylum: individuals who experienced persecution at the hands of non-state actors faced a significantly higher burden of proof to qualify for asylum. This primarily impacted victims of domestic and gang violence.
Transit-Country Asylum Ban: this ban required asylum seekers who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States to demonstrate that they had applied for asylum in Mexico first.
2021 Changes to Asylum Policy
Since taking office in January 2021, the Biden administration has made a handful of changes to the Trump administration’s asylum policies. They are discussed in further detail in the Current Policies section.
President Truman’s message about the importance of providing a safe home for refugees in the US following the refugee crisis of World War II
Background
Statistics on US Asylum
There is no set limit on how many asylum claims can be granted per year. Applicants must apply for asylum within a year of entering the United States in order to be considered, unless they demonstrate extraordinary circumstances preventing them from doing so. Asylum grantees in recent years primarily came from China, Venezuela and countries in Central America like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, otherwise known as the Northern Triangle.
Figure 1: Asylum Applications and Acceptances (2012-2017)
As can be seen in Figure 1, the number of asylum applicants has increased throughout the decade. This is due to increased authoritarianism in China and instability and gang violence in Central America. Contrary to a widely-held belief, only a fraction of asylum seekers are from Mexico. Instead, many asylum seekers originate further south and pass through Mexico to seek asylum on the southern border. While the number of asylum applications has increased, the overall number of people attempting to enter the United States via the border with Mexico is at a historic low.
The Southern Border: Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Immigrants
One major pathway for asylum seekers from Central and Latin America is to travel through Mexico and apply at a port of entry on the US’s southern border. This is a also a common route for undocumented immigrants to enter the country. The media narrative in the US has focused in recent years on people approaching the southern border and portrayed the issue as a crisis. However, it is important to note that while asylum seekers have increased across the span of the decade, undocumented immigrant entries have decreased and overall border crossings are at a historic low according to the Department of Homeland Security. As can be seen in Figure 2, overall border crossings have been declining since the early 2000s.
China: Individuals flee China primarily due to the Chinese government’s crackdown on freedom of expression and religious liberties. Chinese citizens face some of the strictest censorship laws in the world, and minor acts of defiance can result in criminal prosecution and a prison sentence. A 2017 report from Freedom House suggested that at least 100 million Chinese citizens faced “high” or “very high” levels of religious persecution. Because of this, many Chinese people seek asylum in the US on the basis of political opinion or religious persecution.
Northern Triangle (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador): Push factors, or social and economic factors causing people to leave a country, are often intertwined, which means understanding and addressing the issues has to be done holistically. Many people in the Northern Triangle countries suffer from chronic poverty, a problem which is exacerbated by weak governments which cannot provide a sufficient social safety net or economic opportunity, and extreme weather conditions like flooding, drought, and hurricanes. Poor economic conditions are not sufficient causes for asylum applications to the US, but the chronic poverty and weak government provided a fertile recruitment ground for gangs and international drug cartels.
Poverty rates in this region are some of the worst in Latin America, and the homicide rates are the worst in the world. Homicides in Honduras had just a 4% conviction rate from from 2010 to 2013, and there is a pervasive sense that criminals can operate with impunity. The International Crisis Group’s research into gang violence in El Salvador found that El Salvador has more gang members than police officers (60,000 to 52,0000) and roughly 8% of the country’s entire population is part of the gang social support base. The two primary actors in the region are the gangs MS-13 and 18th Street. Women are especially impacted by gang activities; sexual violence and femicide are common and the governments’ lack of efficacy on tackling gang-related crimes as well as the disempowered position of women generally mean there is often little protection or recourse for these crimes.
Instability in the region and high demand for drugs in the US has caused Central America to become a major highway for drug trafficking. The United States is the largest cocaine market in the world, and international drug traffickers took root in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador to transport cocaine from the Andean production region. The wealth associated with the drug trade, contrasted with the poverty of the region, empowers traffickers to recruit locals as transporters, commit violence against those who resist, and claim sovereignty over key routes, all with relative impunity.
Read More
For an overview of the legal immigration system and more information on each of the four main entry paths for permanent residents, read this primer from the Migration Policy Institute.
This interactive chart demonstrates the annual number of people granted permanent residency in the US from 1820 to the present day.
Current Policies and Challenges
Homeland Security’s Role in US Immigration
Immigration services were handled by the Department of Justice up until the official establishment of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. Following this, the Department of Homeland Security established three new agencies to take on the new roles that encompass immigration services. These new agencies were the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Each of these agencies are assigned specific roles and responsibilities to ensure American safety and security.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is responsible for protecting the 328 ports of entry in the United States and enforcing the hundreds of laws and regulations that provide safety to citizens and trade. As part of their duty, CBP can question, investigate, and detain aliens arriving at any U.S. port of entry. The United States Border Patrol is a subset of this agency and is responsible for monitoring all land borders of the United States. Their jurisdiction to investigate, arrest, and detain aliens is within 99 miles of land borders.
As CBP’s roles and responsibilities are mainly limited to borders and points of entry, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for enforcing immigration laws in the remaining areas of the United States. In addition to the enforcement of immigration law, ICE investigates, arrests, detains, and removes illegal aliens. They also identify smugglers, locate persons illegally in the U.S., handle the illegal employment of aliens, combat money-laundering, and, through their attorneys, represent the U.S. government in immigration prosecutions. In general, CBP and ICE have very similar responsibilities but with different jurisdictions.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is responsible for reviewing applications for permanent residency and citizenship. While it is not a law enforcement agency, CIS has some similar roles to the other agencies as it approves immigrant visas and can send individuals to immigration court. Additionally, those seeking asylum apply through this agency.
Processing Asylum Claims
Asylum-seekers can apply through an affirmative or defensive process. Charts visualizing the path of asylum seekers through the affirmative and defensive process can be found in Appendix 2.
Affirmative applications come from individuals already inside the US who are not in the process of being removed. Individuals could have entered the country on a legal visa, or entered without legal documentation. Affirmative applicants apply through US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. They undergo background and security checks to make sure they are not a threat to the United States, which would disqualify them from asylum status. Affirmative applicants meet with a USCIS officer to demonstrate their asylum case, and can bring legal counsel and evidence to support their claim. USCIS officers can grant asylum based on the meeting with the applicant. If the officer decides there is not sufficient evidence that the applicant qualifies for asylum, and the applicant does not have a valid visa to be in the country, they are referred to an immigration judge for deportation proceedings where they can also apply for the defensive asylum process. If the officer decides there is not sufficient evidence but the applicant has a valid visa to be in the country, the application is simply denied.
Figure 5: Outcomes of Affirmative Asylum Applications (2017)
Defensive applications come from individuals without a lawful method of entry into the US, either at a port of entry (like the southern border), or who entered the country without a visa and are in the process of being removed. As discussed in the Historical Overview section, defensive applicants at the US border are subject to expedited removal, where they have an interview with a USCIS asylum officer who determines whether they are likely to be granted asylum. If they are deemed to be not likely, they are immediately deported. Those who are likely to be granted asylum continue with the defensive process. Defensive applicants are processed by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), an agency in the Department of Justice. The next step in the process is a hearing on the asylum application with an immigration judge. In the hearing, an attorney from Immigration and Customs Department (ICE) presents arguments for deporting the applicant, and the applicant or their representative can present evidence on behalf of their asylum claim. The immigration judge then makes a decision about the asylum applications.
The following chart demonstrates the structure of the different government bodies which are responsible for aspects of the asylum process.
Figure 6: Structure of Government Involved in Asylum Processing
There are two main challenges associated with the defensive asylum process. First, a comprehensive investigation by the University of Pennsylvania Law Review found that access to representation was unequal across asylum seekers, but having representation made a significant difference in the outcome of the hearing. The researchers found that only 37% of defensive asylum seekers had legal representation, but those with representation were fifteen times more likely to secure asylum status. Asylum seekers who are poorer or located in rural areas were found to be disadvantaged in securing representation. While asylum seekers have the right to representation if they choose, in practice many do not have the opportunity to secure one because of their geographic location, financial situation, or if they are held in detention facilities prior to their hearing. Legal representation makes such a great impact because many asylum seekers are not familiar with the complex legal proceedings and do not speak English as a first language. The chasm between successful claims with and without legal representation suggests that the current system may be turning away valid asylum claims. A different reading of the facts could be that lawyers choose to work with applicants who they see as having strong cases for asylum.
Another challenge in the defensive asylum process is the disparity in outcomes based on the immigration judge assigned to adjudicate the case. A 2017 report on asylum outcomes by judge found that the outcome of an asylum case varies, on average, by 56% depending on the judge adjudicating the case. This means that “a typical asylum seeker might have only a 15% chance of being granted asylum all the way up to a 71% chance depending on the particular judge assigned to hear the case.” The variation in outcomes again indicates that people fleeing genuine persecution may be turned away from safety in the US, and that there is potential for individuals taking advantage of the system to receive asylum.
Asylum-seekers whose claims take longer than 180 days to be processed are granted work authorization in the US until a decision has been reached, so that they are able to support themselves and their dependents. Prior to the 2019 Migration Protection Protocols, they were allowed to reside in the US or in detention facilities during the first 180 days, but not work.
Overloading the Asylum System
Figure 1: Asylum Applications and Acceptances (2012-2017)
As demonstrated by Figure 1, the caseload for both USCIS and EOIR has ballooned across the decade as instability in Latin America has led to a massive increase in asylum applications. The budget, facilities, and staff of both departments are not capable of processing three times as many cases in the same amount of time, leading to a backlog of tens of thousands of asylum cases. At the end of 2010 there was a 6,000 case backlog. At the end of 2018 the backlog stood at 645,000 cases. The average asylum application in 2018 took 1,071 days (almost 3 years) to reach a final decision.
In addition to the system being unequipped to handle the number of asylum claims that regularly occur, several structural challenges encourage additional asylum claims which only serve to bog down the system further.
Because of the 180 days work visa rule, and the fact that almost all claims take longer than 180 days to process, there is an incentive for people without valid asylum claims to apply in pursuit of the US work authorization, expecting that it will take months or years for their case to be thrown out. 55,000 work authorizations were granted in 2012, but that number jumped to 270,000 in 2016 as the backlog increased and it took longer and longer to process a case. However, it is important to note that the majority of asylum seekers over the past ten years are families and unaccompanied minors, which are not the demographics who generally migrate in search of work. Single men are generally the demographic group migrating in search of work. This indicates that while some individuals are abusing the system, to gain work authorization, that is not indicative of the majority of asylum claims.
The second structural challenge is a process called “cancellation of removal,” which creates additional work for USCIS to process. “Cancellation of removal” allows undocumented immigrants who have resided in the US for more than ten years to normalize their residency status because their deportation would cause hardship for a US citizen. The only way to apply for cancellation of removal is by being in the process of being deported. The process is:
Apply for asylum affirmatively with USCIS (without expecting to be successful)
Get turned down due to arriving in the country more than a year prior to applying
Individuals apprehended at the border or in removal processes are placed in immigration detention centers which are run by ICE, including asylum seekers applying through the defensive process. Asylum seekers can be released from detention centers by two methods; parole or bond:
Parole: The Department of Homeland Security has directed ICE to release asylum seekers on parole at the discretion of the ICE agent. The agent should take into account if the asylum seeker is a flight risk, and if it is “in the public interest” to keep them detained because they are a danger to the community. From 2011 to 2013, 92% of asylum seekers were paroled. Since 2017, 4% of asylum seekers across five main detention centers have received parole. In a detention center in New Orleans, 24.5% of parole applications were denied in 2016, while 100% were denied in 2019.
Bond: Asylum seekers can also be released on bond, based on factors like flight risk and previous court appearances. The minimum bond amount is $1,500, which is out of reach for many asylum seekers.
The combination of increased asylum applications, longer processing wait times, and decreased parole means that the size and cost of detention centers is steadily increasing. In 2019, ICE detention centers cost $3.2 billion directly, and appropriated more funding from other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. The Trump administration requested $4.1 billion for ICE detention centers for 2021.
During the campaign, Biden made numerous promises in regard to immigration, refugee, and asylum policy. Some of these promises included $4 billion in aid to the Northern Triangle countries, ending the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy,” and increasing the refugee cap by 15,000. Since coming into office in January 2021, the Biden administration has implemented the following policies.
Family Reunification Task Force: On February 2nd, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order establishing a task force with the mission of working “across the U.S. government, with key stakeholders and representatives of impacted families, and with partners across the hemisphere to find parents and children separated by the Trump Administration.”
Revoked the Migrant Protection Protocols: In addition to the previous executive order, President Biden also signed one that ended the MPP which, commonly referred to as “remain in Mexico,” forced asylum seekers to stay in Mexico as their applications were processed. As one of the first moves by the Biden administration, newly appointed Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas ended the practice. Secretary Mayorkas stated as his reasoning that the MPP “does not adequately or sustainably enhance border management in such a way as to justify the program’s extensive operational burdens and other shortfalls. Over the course of the program, border encounters increased during certain periods and decreased during others.”
Changes to Legal Immigration System: The final executive order President Biden signed focused on the legal immigration system and removing a Trump administration policy that required family sponsors to repay the government if relatives received public benefits. This Trump administration policy made it so “applications for some immigrants, including those wishing to seek permanent legal residency, could be rejected it if the immigrant received public benefits for more than 12 months within any 36-month period and if ‘at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge.’” This executive order also reinstated an Obama administration task force that was focused on assisting immigrants and refugees in their transition to American life.
Central American Regional Security Initiative
The Obama administration consolidated previous aid and security programs to create the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) in 2010. According to the State Department, these are “the Five Goals of CARSI in Central America:
Create safe streets for the citizens of the region;
Disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband to, within, and between the nations of Central America;
Support the development of strong, capable, and accountable Central American governments;
Re-establish effective state presence, services and security in communities at risk; and
Foster enhanced levels of coordination and cooperation between the nations of the region, other international partners, and donors to combat regional security threats.”
In summary, the CARSI was intended to mitigate the factors which force people to seek asylum. The initiative was aimed at working with governments to not only address US security concerns, but also improve the social and economic factors which led to violence, asylum seekers, and drug trafficking. Preliminary data suggested that while CARSI had initial positive effects like reducing homicide rates and corruption and improving national GDP, it was a long way from reaching US security goals. A long term commitment appears necessary to achieve those goals.
In 2019, the Trump administration cut most aid to Northern Triangle countries (including CARSI) in response to the continued applications for asylum from those countries. In order to restart aid, the nations were asked to negotiate “safe third country agreements,” whereby asylum seekers could be sent to those countries to apply for asylum rather than being granted asylum in the US. The United States has a safe third country agreement with Canada, and member states of the European Union have a similar agreement with each other, but this situation is different in that all three of these countries produce large numbers of asylum seekers. Under these agreements, a family who fled Honduras after MS-13 attempted to recruit their son by force could be sent to a town in Guatemala which is also controlled by MS-13.
The Migration Policy Institute wrote a report analyzing the factors leading the breakdown of the US asylum system
Read a report on the conditions in detention centers
Policy Alternatives
Combatting the Backlog of Applications
Many feel that the most urgent challenge to be addressed is the backlog of asylum applicants, which is hundreds of thousands strong. Vulnerable people are left in limbo and the backlog protracts dangerous situations for months or years. In addition, accumulating a growing backlog every year causes the American public to lose confidence in the ability of the government to enforce immigration and asylum laws.
Two potential reforms could help reduce the backlog:
In 2018 USCIS began implementing a “last in, first out” policy, where applications are processed starting with newer applications and working backwards, rather than processing applications in chronological order. This policy quickly weeds out unnecessary applications filed with the expectation of a work visa, and deters future fraudulent claims. However, there are concerns that that “last in, first out” is unfair to people with valid asylum claims who have been waiting years for their chance at a hearing, only to be placed at the back of the line once again. For this reason, “last in, first out” is a short term fix to deal with the crisis, not a sustainable solution to the problem that more asylum claims come in annually than the system is equipped to process.
The affirmative and defensive processes could be streamlined by creating a separate path for cancellation of removal applications. Currently, the most efficient way for undocumented immigrants to apply for a cancellation of removal is by being rejected for asylum. A separate application would save USCIS and EOIR from having to process thousands of unnecessary claims every year.
Fairness in Adjudicating Claims
The variation in adjudication outcomes based on the presence of legal representation and the judge in question has concerning implications for the efficacy of the current system. One way to combat the variation from judges is to create more standardized measures for weighing asylum claims. In the status quo, the standard of a “well-founded fear of persecution” is not legally defined, and is interpreted by each judge. In addition, USCIS and EOIR could record statistics about the results of hearings nationally, and flag judges whose decisions verge drastically from the average for a country. Those judges could experience additional training, or else have their decisions automatically reviewed.
The variation from legal representation has a more difficult fix. The federal government could guarantee representation for all applicants, similar to the way all citizens in criminal trials have the right to an attorney. This would require up-front investment in the form of paying the equivalent of public defenders for asylum seekers who did not secure their own representation, and could pay off in the long run. Applicants without representation often file many different types of claims in a scattershot attempt to find one that will be granted, as opposed to applicants with representation who only file the claim which they see as applicable. One major delay in asylum processing is the time it takes for detained asylum seekers to attempt to get legal representation. During this time, they remain in tax-payer funded detainment centers for days or weeks. Finally, attorneys can guide clients through the complex legal process so that the court runs efficiently. All of these factors lead some to suggest that the cost of providing public defenders would pay for itself by decreasing the time which asylum seekers spend in courtrooms and detainment centers.
Reforming Detention Centers
Detention of migrants, including asylum seekers, comes at a great cost to the American taxpayer. The detained population could be reduced by increasing the use of parole and bond release.
Families and children, especially those who secure legal representation, are not “flight risks” and appear for their hearings upwards of 96% of the time. Many feel there is little value in keeping these people in detention centers.
For individuals who pose a greater risk of skipping their hearing and remaining in the country in an undocumented capacity, ICE could expand its use of monitoring devices, which it is already authorized to use.
In summary, the most cost-effective option is to reserve detention centers for individuals who pose a genuine risk to the community, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security guidelines, and asylum seekers (primary families and unaccompanied minors) rarely fall into that category.
Reducing the population of detention centers could go hand in hand with reforming the centers to support humane living conditions. There are two main arguments for doing this:
The obligation to provide a safe environment for those submitting asylum applications is a matter of American and international law, as discussed in the Historical Overview.
Many of the people in detention centers have valid asylum claims which are eventually approved. They are less capable of contributing to their new host country after the trauma of several months in overcrowded, unsanitary and unsafe conditions.
Capping the Number of Asylum Seekers
Some types of legal permanent resident applications in the US have pre-set quotas for how many applications can be approved each year. Refugees fall into this category, as do employment and diversity visas, among others. Immediate family visas (visas for the spouses, unmarried minor children, and parents of US citizens) and asylum seekers do not have quotas, and instead every eligible person who applies is granted legal permanent resident status, limited only by the time it takes to process the application, which can take years. One policy change suggestion is to create a quota for asylum seekers, to limit the number of people who enter the country. This would give the US government more control over the number of people accepted through the asylum channel. Some Americans have a negative response to the idea of taking an unlimited number of people, even though asylees make up only a fraction of total immigrants annually. Some are also concerned that an asylum system without caps incentivizes more people to make asylum claims, even if they are not actually facing persecution.
There is some international precedent for limiting the number of asylum seekers accepted into a country. For example, the European Union created an arrangement with Turkey in 2016 to respond to the refugee crisis and the millions of asylum seekers attempting to make their way to Europe through Turkey. In this deal, Turkey sheltered the displaced population and EU countries resettled as many as they felt capable of handling (Germany accepted more than a million). The EU provided 6 billion Euros to support the displaced population in Turkey. Following the end of the civil war in Syria (the main cause of displacement), the majority of the displaced population in Turkey is expected to return to Syria. You can read more about this agreement in the EU-Turkey Migration Agreement brief.
If the US implemented an asylum quota it would continue to see the same problems which appear with the metering strategy. This looks like already-vulnerable people waiting in Mexican border towns who are susceptible to gang and sexual violence. Mexico is not as safe or as stable as Turkey, and it does not have the capacity to shelter the displaced population. Moreover, the United States would likely need to match the billions of dollars in aid which the EU supplied to Turkey in order to avoid straining Mexico’s resources past the breaking point.
Capping the number of asylum seekers accepted annually, when asylum currently makes up a relatively small amount of US immigration, could be perceived by American allies as an extreme response to the situation. The United States is already perceived as doing less than its fair share on the global stage due to its record low refugee cap, which put much of the burden of the recent refugee crisis on European allies.
Creating stable environments in other countries
Another option to reduce the number of applicants for asylum in the US is to improve the stability of the countries where people are fleeing. The main country of origin for successful asylum seekers is China, making up 20.9% of successful asylum applications in 2017. However there is no clear path for reducing persecution on the part of the Chinese government. The Northern Triangle countries (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador) collectively accounted for 22.2% of affirmative and 64% of defensive asylum applications which totalled more than 107,000 applications in 2017, making these countries a logical starting place for reducing overall asylum applications.
The CARSI plan (2010-2019) was an attempt to stabilize the region, and as noted in the Current Policies section, had some success prior to its untimely end. If the US is serious about mitigating the conditions which lead to asylum applications on the southern border, it should restart the aid program targeted at strengthening law enforcement, ending corruption, and reducing poverty.
Read More
Doctors Without Borders wrote a report documenting the violence faced by asylum seekers awaiting their hearing from Mexico through the Migrant Protection Protocols.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Base data for graphs
Figure 1: Asylum Applications and Acceptances (2012-2018)
The EU-Turkey Migration Agreement was a 2016 agreement made between the 28 European Union member states and the Republic of Turkey to decrease crossings on the Greece-Turkey border. The agreement is still in effect in 2021.
Context of the Agreement
European nations experienced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of migrants traveled from the Middle East and North Africa to apply for asylum. The leading cause of this crisis was the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011. By 2015, nonstate actors and extremist groups controlled more than half of the country, so millions of Syrians fled. In addition to Syria, protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to the surge in asylum applications. At the peak of the crisis in 2015, 1.3 million people filed asylum applications in the European Union. The Greek-Turkey land and maritime border became a main pathway for those seeking to enter the EU.
The European Union has a similar asylum policy to the United States; any person with a well-founded fear of persecution on account of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group,” can apply for protection from an EU-member state if they are unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin. This definition does not automatically apply to those fleeing violence and war, so EU law includes a stipulation for “subsidiary protection,” where a person who does not qualify through the traditional pathway but can demonstrate they would suffer a real risk of serious harm if returned to their country also qualifies for protection. European Union member states granted protection through both pathways during the humanitarian crisis.
All new “irregular migrants” crossing to Greece via Turkey could be returned to Turkey, as well as asylum seekers in Greece whose applications were denied. In exchange, for every irregular migrant returned to Turkey, one Syrian would be resettled in the EU. “Irregular migrants” was not defined in the agreement, but it is generally accepted to mean those without visas to enter Greece, which would include asylum seekers. This was designed to incentivize displaced people to stay in Turkey, rather than cross to Greece and apply for protection there. Since the agreement came into force, 28,000 Syrians have been resettled in the EU from Turkey through the exchange agreement.
The European Union would provide €6 billion ($7.1 billion) to Turkey for refugee aid.
Turkey and the European Union would work to revitalize cooperation through trade agreements, visa liberalization, and Turkey’s accession to the EU.
Since the agreement was implemented, irregular migration to Greece has decreased 97%
Political concerns: there was a widespread perception among citizens of member states that the European Union was failing to handle the crisis. A 2016 survey found that citizens overwhelmingly disapproved of the EU response, with attitudes ranging from 60 to 80% disapproving and reaching as high as 95% disapproving among Greek citizens. Governments and citizens felt overwhelmed by the sheer number of asylum seekers, and were concerned about the economic burden and a potential strain on the social safety net. The United Kingdom voted to leave the EU in 2016 (also known as “Brexit”) and the refugee issue and immigration concerns played a large role in that decision. All of these factors contributed to a desire to take immediate action.
Arguments in opposition:
Outsourcing asylum: human rights organizations and activists objected to the agreement because they felt it allowed European Union member states to abdicate their obligation to those in need of international protection. The agreement effectively created a “buffer state” blocking asylum seekers from applying for international protection. Following the Turkey agreement, the European Union came to a similar deal with Libya.
Turkey as a “safe country”: recent reports suggest that Syrians and other displaced people in Turkey do not have access to resources to fulfill basic human needs. Many are homeless or living in dilapidated housing, and rely on charity or work in the informal sector. In addition, human rights organizations have documented the Turkish government forcibly relocating refugees back to Syria, violating the international principle of “non refoulement,” which means refugees should not be forced to return to a country where they will face persecution. Because of these factors, some argue that Turkey is not itself a safe country, and therefore returning refugees to Turkey also violates the non refoulement principle.
Turkish Perspective
Arguments in support:
Improve cooperation with the EU: the agreement included a provision to discuss visa liberalization, meaning that Turkish citizens would be able to enter the Schengen Area without applying for a visa in advance. In addition, the EU and Turkey currently have a Customs Union which allows for tariff-free trade with several exceptions; part of the agreement involves updating the Union for improved trade relations. Finally, the agreement specifically mentions working towards Turkey’s accession to the European Union, however there are doubts about whether either side really believed this would come to pass. Turkey had not met the economic and political standards needed to join the EU at the time of the agreement, and subsequently experienced democratic backsliding which made joining the EU even more distant.
Funding for refugee aid: as part of the agreement, Turkey received €6 billion to fund refugee aid and resettlement, relieving some of the pressure on the government.
Strong lever in international negotiations: Turkey is currently working to project influence in its neighborhood by playing a larger role in the outcome of conflicts in the region. This brings it into conflict with the European Union in the protracted Cyprus conflict and the Libyan Civil War, among others. The 3.6 million Syrian refugees in Turkey make for a powerful bargaining chip in EU-Turkey negotiations. In March of 2020, Turkey opened the border with Greece and actively pushed for migrants to cross, after a disagreement over military strategy in Syria.
Arguments in opposition:
Same political concerns: although Turkey was initially welcoming to refugees, after five years, 3.6 million refugees, and no end in sight, public approval has turned decidedly negative. Refugees tend to be conservative and religious, while a large portion of the Turkish middle and upper classes are secular and more progressive, creating a culture clash. In addition, Turkey’s economy was struggling even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic’s toll on the tourism industry, which accounts for 12% of Turkey’s GDP. In the last election, the governing AKP party experienced significant losses which were largely attributed to economic and refugee issues.
The immediate impact of the agreement was a dramatic decrease in the crossings from Turkey to Greece (97% down two years out). In the longer term, Turkey-EU relations have continued to worsen despite the immigration cooperation, due to a lack of strategic alignment on regional issues. Despite the agreement, European citizens overwhelmingly disapprove of government handling of the refugee crisis. This led to the rise of anti-immigrant parties across Europe. It is possible that without the agreement, disapproval with the government response would be even higher.
In the future, the situation in Turkey for refugees is likely to devolve. Turkish citizens want to see progress on the issue, but Syria is still largely unsafe for refugees to return. There have been some reports that the Turkish government is deporting Syrians and returning them to unsafe areas—these reports are denied by Turkey.
