The political asylum system has long been an important part of the American story, representing the Western democracy's commitment to protecting persecuted people around the world. As a country of immigrants, the United States is proud to accept those who have been persecuted for reasons such as race, religion, and political views. However, as the 2024 presidential election approaches, whether Trump or Harris eventually enters the White House, the US asylum system seems to be facing unprecedented changes. Many immigration lawyers, scholars, and former federal officials believe that this election may mark the end of the US asylum system.

The evolution of the US asylum system

The asylum system originated during World War II, when the United States and Europe failed to provide adequate asylum to Jews fleeing the Nazi Holocaust. As a result, the United States enacted laws allowing individuals who fled persecution to apply for asylum. This policy evolved further during the Cold War, when the United States gave priority to refugees from communist countries. However, over time, especially after the passage of the Refugee Act in 1980, the US asylum system has gradually expanded to include more types of victims, including victims of domestic violence and gang violence.

In recent years, the intensification of the drug war in Mexico and Central America has led to a large number of immigrants seeking asylum in the United States. The number of asylum applications has surged, but due to the lack of resources in immigration courts, there is a serious backlog of applications. According to data, the approval rate of asylum applications in 2024 is only 3%, and applicants have to wait an average of four years for their applications to be heard. Due to the long waiting time, many immigrants voluntarily surrender after crossing the border because they have the right to work in the United States during the trial, which further increases the pressure on US border management.

Asylum policies of the two major candidates: Trump and Harris

Although Trump and Harris have obvious differences in immigration policies, they have both stated that they will restrict the existing asylum system. During his presidency, Trump drastically cut the approval rate of asylum applications and used executive orders and regulations to increase the difficulty of applications. He has said that if re-elected, he will continue to tighten asylum applications to reduce the chances of immigrants entering the United States.

In contrast, although Harris is relatively moderate in immigration policy, she also supports restricting the conditions for asylum applications at the southern border. She said she would continue President Biden's policy to reduce the number of illegal immigrants through administrative measures. The policies introduced by the Biden administration include requiring applicants to make an appointment for entry through the online platform "CBP One" and limiting the number of entries per day. In addition, the Biden administration has also stopped the procedure of asking immigrants at the border whether they are afraid to return to their home countries, a change that may result in some legitimate asylum applicants being wrongly deported.

Regardless of who wins the election, the tightening of the asylum system seems to have become a political consensus. Chris Ramon, senior immigration adviser for the Latino civil rights organization Unidos USA, pointed out that asylum policies will be stricter in the future, which will become the "default policy position." The fundamental nature of the asylum system is changing, from a global humanitarian obligation to a means of restricting immigration.

The crisis of the US asylum system

The crisis of the US asylum system is not only caused by policy changes. Critics believe that the asylum system has lost its original intention. The asylum procedure, which was originally used to protect persecuted people, has now been abused and has become one of the main ways for immigrants to enter the United States legally. In addition, the number of backlogs in immigration courts has skyrocketed and resources are insufficient, causing the entire system to almost collapse.

Hiroshi Motomura, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that the asylum system has been under pressure for decades, and the response of the US government and Congress has always been to restrict access or cut funding. He believes that the asylum system needs to be comprehensively reformed to meet the challenges of modern society, rather than simply restricting the entry of asylum applicants by increasing thresholds.

In the past few decades, despite the US government's promise to overhaul immigration laws, it has failed to make substantial progress. The issue of immigration asylum has become a core issue in the US immigration system, and as the number of asylum applicants increases, this issue has become more difficult.

The future of the asylum system: global immigration and political situation

With the intensification of global climate change, authoritarian governments violating human rights and other issues, the global immigration wave is expanding. Although the United States and other Western democracies are tightening border controls, the number of asylum applicants is still rising. Faced with this global trend, many immigration scholars and lawyers believe that relying solely on tough restrictions will not solve the problem.

Immigration scholars suggest that the United States should continue to provide humanitarian assistance to immigrants' countries of origin to help these countries improve economic development and security conditions, thereby reducing immigration waves at the source. However, the reality is that the current political environment makes further tightening of the asylum system almost inevitable. Especially in the context of congressional deadlock and the increasingly harsh attitude of the American people towards immigration, the reform of asylum policy faces many obstacles.

Nevertheless, Trump and Harris' policies are not completely consistent. Trump's policies are more radical, especially in eliminating temporary protected status and further reducing the number of asylum applications. Harris, on the other hand, advocates for managing immigration through a more standardized process and providing certain asylum applicants with the opportunity to enter the country under limited conditions.

The U.S. asylum system is at a crossroads. Both Trump's tough immigration policies and Harris's relatively mild measures indicate that the system will continue to face huge changes. The end of the asylum system may not happen immediately, but the next few years will see a major shift in the U.S. role in global refugee assistance and asylum. As global immigration continues to expand, how the United States handles these challenges will directly affect its status and responsibilities as a world leader.