Review asylum process

More resources, closer partnerships needed

America has a crisis on its border, no doubt. President Donald Trump’s proposal to change the asylum seeking process will reduce the number of people begging to get in. However, the proposal is not comprehensive.

The idea of stemming the flow of migration to the U. S. by requiring the migrants to seek asylum in the nearest safe country makes logical sense from a geographical standpoint. Closer may be better, so long as closer is safer. We must be sure. And, therefore, more judges and fact- finders are needed here and abroad. More people to evaluate claims by asylum seekers would lead to expeditious hearings and fair assessments of claims.

The Trump administration proposal, as it is, will greatly impact asylum seekers from Central America. They would be turned away from the U. S. unless they first seek asylum from Mexico, where armed guards on many Mexican street corners are commissioned to protect citizens.

America is not equipped to become

the haven for the number of migrants from troubled nations who want refuge here. The current practice of allowing asylum seekers to be released into the community pending court dates is troubled. Some don’t appear for hearings. Hearings can be delayed, which gives the newcomers time to set down roots that are difficult to yank up. And there is simply not a fully staffed system in place to take all comers. These facts underscore the need for more judges and fact- finders.

A nonpartisan agreement is needed, one that would not use would- be migrants as political fodder and one that will require human treatment and legal treatment. U. S. Rep. Joe Neguse, D- Colo., has proposed a bill that would boost oversight of detention facilities, and that is a good place to start.

The ultimate solution, though, is to knit a closer partnership among the United States, Mexico and other governments in the region. If migrants’ home countries can better answer the needs of their citizens, fewer will head to the U. S.