Asylum Seekers at the U.S. Southern Border in 2019 (NSC)

Role of the United States

The United States has economic, humanitarian, and security interests in managing flows of asylum seekers from Northern Triangle countries. The United States is among the largest providers of humanitarian aid globally. It has also sought to strengthen human rights norms around the world. Given the conditions that many Northern Triangle migrants are fleeing, as well as the dangers migrants face on their journeys. The United States has clear humanitarian incentives to provide support and protection for migrants. Likewise, the United States also has an incentive to address the root issues causing this increase in migration.

Economic considerations also need to be part of the analysis. Supporters of tighter restrictions argue that migrants from Central America often claim asylum to disguise their economic motives. Many also express concern that immigrants could displace American workers and strain U.S. resources. Those in favor of a more accepting admissions policy, however, argue that the economic benefits of allowing asylum seekers—both skilled and unskilled—into the country far outweigh the costs. Most economists agree that increases in the labor force from immigration stimulate the economy.

Any asylum policy also needs to consider national security. Advocates for restrictive policies argue that allowing asylum seekers to enter the United States carries national security risks. These, they argue, include mistakenly allowing entry to members of transnational gangs, drug cartels, or terrorist organizations. Opponents counter that most immigrants are carefully investigated (although unauthorized immigrants are not), and likely do not pose a threat. Many analysts also argue that security concerns are overblown out of racial bias. Although data is limited, several studies have suggested that immigrant populations do not pose a greater criminal threat than the native-born population.

Finally, policymakers need to consider the potential for political and popular backlash that a large inflow of asylum seekers could cause. Given that immigration policy in the United States is often subject to intense political debate, a large inflow of asylum seekers could further motivate nationalist anti-immigration groups.

NSC members could consider several policy options to address the influx of asylum seekers from Central America, keeping in mind the political, economic, and security implications of each. These options can be pursued in combination or individually.

Policy Options

An Open-Door Policy

The United States has at times opened the door to specific groups of asylum seekers. It has also provided Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for those who cannot return to their country of origin due to armed conflict or natural disaster. Haitians, Hondurans, and Salvadorans have all received TPS in the past. NSC members could adopt a similar open-door policy toward the coming influx of Northern Triangle migrants by offering them TPS or passing a specific law.

This approach would require a decision about which countries to include and how many asylum seekers to admit. NSC members would also need to decide whether to provide temporary or permanent protection to those arriving and how to process them in a timely fashion.

Though an open-door policy would provide the greatest humanitarian protection to those arriving at the Southern border, it carries several risks:

This option could encourage continued migration from Northern Triangle countries, which could include migrants who are not necessarily fleeing violence but are seeking economic opportunity.
An open door could cause domestic political backlash that those who favor anti-immigration policies could exploit.
Absorbing or integrating individuals into the economic, social, and political fabric of the United States could strain social safety nets and create competition for jobs.
Admitting large numbers of asylum seekers could pose a security risk by straining existing capacity to screen migrants to identify potential security threats to the country.

Asylum Reform

The years-long backlog in the asylum system puts pressure on both the U.S. government and asylum seekers. The government could commit resources to hire additional immigration judges in order to work through the backlog quickly. The government could also provide legal counsel to some or all asylum seekers (unlike in criminal court, immigration court has no right to counsel) to both speed the system and better protect asylum seekers’ rights. To stop the backlog from growing further, the government could also allow immigration agencies greater leeway to decide asylum cases without referring them to courts.

Asylum reform would help to clear the current backlog of asylum claims in the United States more quickly. However, this option has potential drawbacks:

The process of hiring and training new immigration judges is likely to be long and expensive; even small-scale additions of judges and staff for a fiscal year have cost over $40 million.
Providing access to counsel makes asylum seekers more likely to succeed in their claims, which could provoke a domestic political backlash.
This plan could reduce the backlog but would not address the root causes of displacement from Central America.

Enlisting Mexican and Regional Support to Stop the Flow

As long as the United States permits asylum seekers to enter the country and file their claims, their numbers are likely to grow. The asylum determination process is a lengthy one, and many asylum seekers live for two or more years in the United States before their cases are resolved. In addition, many who are rejected for asylum do not return home but remain in the United States without authorization. The United States could require Central Americans and others arriving in Mexico to request asylum there instead or to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed in the United States.

This policy would likely reduce the flow sharply but entails several risks:

Enlisting regional support could open the United States to charges of violating both its international commitments (the principle of non-refoulement) and domestic law (the Refugee Act of 1980).
This option could force asylum seekers to remain in areas in Guatemala and Mexico that are known for trafficking, smuggling, and extraction.
Migrants who would otherwise have used the asylum process could be pushed to attempt unauthorized entry to the United States.
This option could face Mexican opposition—NSC members would need to consider what incentives they could offer to convince Mexico to cooperate in such an arrangement.

Regional Aid and Refugee Processing

NSC members could address the root causes of migration by providing support to Northern Triangle countries. This approach would involve using U.S. foreign aid to provide relief from extreme poverty and climate change. The United States could also provide police, military, and legal advisors, to strengthen governments and combat corruption. For those still seeking asylum, the United States could work with stable neighboring countries such as Costa Rica and with the United Nations to set up refugee camps and processing facilities closer to the Northern Triangle countries. The United States could support efforts to process Northern Triangle refugees closer to home by committing to accept a significant number of these processed refugees.

This policy would reduce the incentive for Central Americans to attempt the long and dangerous journey to the United States. However, policymakers need to consider several drawbacks:

This approach has the greatest amount of uncertainty—U.S. money and support cannot guarantee greater stability in the region.
It could take the longest time to see effects on the U.S.-Mexico border. Success, if it comes, would likely take many years.
This option demands a high investment of resources concentrated outside the United States.