Immigration: Does Justice or Politcs Drive Asylum?
March 6, 2024
Moderated by Colin Moseley
Download Gordon Haist’s Paper (PDF)
Download the Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
Ethics chair Gordon Haist convened the session with a memorial notice concerning Dr. Gerry Schroeder, a founding member of the Society whose invaluable support and direction remained constant until his death just this past week. Haist called on two other founding members, Neil Funnell and Isam Sakati, to say a few words of remembrance of their friend and colleague. He then began the session by presenting the following:
Justice and politics have conflicted since the rise of civilization. They represent two different standards of value or standards for determining worth. Justice is other-regarding and community-building. Politics, by contrast, is based on the accumulation and retention of power. Power is fueled by and in turn fuels self-interest.
Immigration epitomizes this conflict. The ancient fear of the stranger may have been replaced in pluralist societies by a fear of differences, but eligibility requirements for refugees largely abate that concern. When immigration policies break down or prove inadequate to the demand, those fears return.
A person is eligible for refugee status if:
He or she is unable or unwilling to return to their home country due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution related to their race, religion, nationality, social group membership, political opinion or (more recently), fear of forced abortion or sterilization or of coercive population controls.
Refuge can be granted to someone outside the U.S. Asylum can be granted to someone inside the U.S. or arriving at a U.S. port of entry.
To be granted refugee status applicants must:
Be of special humanitarian concern to the U.S.
Meet the refugee status definition
Be admissible under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) (or granted a waiver)
Not be firmly resettled elsewhere
Merit a favorable exercise of discretion
Once asylum is granted:
The asylee can apply a year later for a Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR).
If approved, LPRs can apply for naturalization five years after their “resident since” date (their initial asylum approval date).
In 2020 President Trump used categories rather than regional allotments to set the refugee admissions ceiling, set the ceiling at 18,000, and further reduced it to 15,000 in 2021. For 2022 President Biden restored the regional allotments and set the admissions ceiling at 125,000.
From 2021 to 2022, affirmative asylum applications quadrupled to 238,841, the highest number on record.
In the same year defensive applications (applications to block removal from the country) also quadrupled to 253,524, again the highest number on record. Those granted asylum doubled to 36,615.
Backlogs occur. 1% of 2013 applications are still pending. That number grew to 91% of 2022 applications that are pending.
The Ethics of Asylum: Two Arguments
Pro: Justice drives Asylum
Justice establishes the norm for cooperativeness among people
Cooperation requires that all people have the right to have rights.
Immigration means stateless until resettled elsewhere
To be stateless is to be without rights
Asylum confers rights
Hence a just society must recognize asylum as a moral principle
Con: Politics drives Asylum
Politics is necessary to preserve a state’s self-identity
Justice is not universal but particular (cooperation is among particulars)
Asylum is a privilege conferred by the state in its rightful self-interest, not a right
Moreover, not all humans are equal or equally deserving
Hence asylum can only be driven through politics on the basis the state’s interests
Ethics Board member Colin Moseley fielded comments and questions from the audience.
One comment: we need to allocate more tax money for immigration. Currently there is not enough staff to handle the large number of people coming to the US. The speaker added that it is much more dangerous for migrants to try to enter Europe than the US.
Another audience member said most migrants are not coming through our ports of entry. Anyone can walk into our country, and our country is being invaded. We must defend our country.
An Ethics Board member says our immigration system is broken. The US cut border funding to prevent people from coming in. We need to go the source of the situation, which is to address the problems in the countries from which people are fleeing.
The moderator has had experiences with immigrants through his medical practice and says these are good people. The majority are family oriented and support their families. He added that our country needs more young people and our US citizens are not producing them.
Another respondent reminded us that all of us came from immigrants.
An audience member felt undocumented immigrants are breaking the law. He added that US aid prevents people from taking responsibility and fuels corruption and lawlessness.
An Ethics Board member said that the US needs to do the right thing. We helped Japan and Germany after WWII, and we can work the problems from both sides of the border. He added that many immigrants start businesses and hire other people.
Another Ethics Board member validated that we have a broken system that must be fixed. A solution would be to stop all immigration for 6 months to a year, allowing the backup applications to be processed. After the system is fixed the doors can be reopened.
One asked if it is legal to send DACA people back to their country of origin, and another said they deserve to be citizens.
An audience member added the path to citizenship is too expensive.
Another felt that closing the borders will lead to bloodshed. He pointed out that in the distant past immigrants must have a connection to be allowed in the US, as his grandfather did in 1845.
A member of the audience was concerned with the health of the immigrants allowed to enter.
The moderator said that Australia, New Zealand, and Canada have very good immigration policies.
Ethics Board Chair said that our country does a great job in getting immigrants resettled. An audience member added that Iowa was very welcoming to immigrants because they needed the work force.
A member of the audience said we must address the huge number of people coming through the borders, which is now untenable. Another added that we must close the border. We need to provide more money to resettle people.
After great discussions with many diverse opinions moderator Colin ended the presentation with the summary of “Immigration is a problem” and “The system is not working.”