By John Q. Hosedrinker 
With Donald Trump’s inauguration, the CBP One app, used by migrants to schedule asylum appointments, was immediately deactivated, leaving hundreds stranded at the border. These migrants, some having waited nearly a year for appointments, saw their hopes of a new life in the U.S. dashed. The Trump administration plans to eliminate the asylum system and suspend refugee resettlement, effectively closing the border to those seeking refuge. Mexican authorities barred further crossings, leaving many migrants despondent and without options.
Read the original article here
The abrupt shutdown of the asylum system has left countless migrants in a state of despair at the border. People who have waited for months, even half a year, for their asylum appointments have seen their hopes dashed overnight, leaving them stranded and uncertain about their future. This action raises serious concerns about what will happen when seeking asylum legally becomes even more difficult than entering the country illegally, especially for those with nothing left to lose.
The claim that this situation was entirely predictable is a difficult one to reconcile with the human cost. While it’s true that the rhetoric surrounding border control has been consistently harsh for a long time, many migrants may not have fully grasped the implications of such aggressive policies. It’s easy to say “they should have known,” but the complexity of international law and the shifting political landscape make it far from simple for those fleeing desperate situations to navigate.
The distinction between “migrants” and “asylum seekers” is crucial, yet frequently blurred. While migrants may choose to leave their home countries in search of better opportunities, asylum seekers are forced to flee due to persecution or violence. The fact that many people seeking asylum may be primarily motivated by economic hardship doesn’t negate the dangers they might face in their home countries, or the emotional weight of their situations.
It’s true that the asylum system has been subject to abuse, and that some applicants may not meet the criteria for asylum. However, dismissing all claims as baseless ignores the very real hardships faced by many who are genuinely fleeing persecution and violence. Simply labeling everyone an “economic migrant” is an oversimplification and ignores the nuance of individual situations.
The frustration and anger surrounding the situation are understandable. The suggestion that the closure of legal avenues will lead to an increase in illegal crossings is not mere conjecture; it’s a foreseeable and likely consequence. With legal options all but eliminated, individuals may resort to dangerous and exploitative methods of border crossing, further endangering themselves and potentially facilitating criminal activity.
Moreover, the potential for increased violence and exploitation at the border cannot be ignored. Smuggling networks thrive on desperation, and when legal paths are blocked, the power of these criminal organizations only increases. The risk of kidnapping, violence, and other crimes against migrants rises dramatically, as does the profit margin for those willing to exploit the desperate.
The issue is not just about border security, it’s about the very fabric of humanitarian values. The idea that a nation can simply shut its doors to those seeking refuge, leaving them to the mercy of smugglers and criminals, raises serious ethical concerns. The rhetoric of “law and order” seems hollow when juxtaposed with reports of human rights violations and the potential for widespread suffering.
Focusing solely on preventing illegal immigration, while simultaneously dismantling legal pathways, seems to be an approach that addresses the symptoms, not the underlying causes. Genuine immigration reform needs to go far beyond border security; it requires a holistic approach that considers the needs of both the host country and those seeking refuge or opportunity.
While some argue that asylum seekers should wait in their home country or in a neighboring country like Mexico, the realities of such situations often contradict this seemingly simple solution. Many countries lack the capacity to adequately provide for those seeking asylum, and the risks faced by asylum seekers in those areas may be as high or higher than the risks faced crossing a border.
The current situation underscores the need for a comprehensive and humane approach to immigration. A system that provides safe and legal pathways for those fleeing persecution while addressing concerns about border security and maintaining a fair immigration process is essential. Simply shutting down legal routes creates a vacuum that is invariably filled by illicit and dangerous practices. Instead of focusing on simple solutions, a more compassionate and thoughtful approach is needed.