Outsourcing American values

In the aftermath of World War II, reflecting in part an acknowledgment of its failure to take in Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, this nation steadily expanded legal protections for immigrants seeking asylum here. The Trump administration announced this week that it would be significantly retreating from the longheld American principle that asylum seekers who show up at our ports of entry would be assured due process for their claims. The change is designed to deter the influx of Central American refugees that have been overwhelming the immigration court system.

The policy shift is as cruel as it is impractical.

So what happens now to Central Americans who have endured the long and precarious journey through Guatemala and Mexico to make their appeal for entry to the U.S. because of a fear or persecution in their homeland? Under the new Trump administration edict, they will be turned away unless they have applied — and been rejected — for asylum in Guatemala or Mexico.

Neither of those countries is on board. Mexico Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said flatly that “Mexico does not agree” with the U.S. policy change. Guatemala’s highest court has issued injunctions to keep President Jimmy Morales from signing on to a safethirdcountry agreement with the U.S.

In effect, the United States is sending the message that it simply doesn’t care what happens to these migrants.

Perhaps it is not surprising in view of everything else that is going on: the separation of families, the reports of deplorable conditions at the detention camps, the requirement that applicants wait in Mexico pending their court hearings. The new asylum guidelines also come in the same week of President Trump’s racist attack on four congresswomen of color, suggesting they should “go back to where they came from.” Three were born in the United States; a fourth is an American citizen who was brought here with her family fleeing civil war in Somalia.

The new Trump asylum rule is certain to face a legal challenge.

It appears to be in conflict with a law passed by Congress that a migrant seeking asylum cannot be blocked on the basis of his or her country of origin. Existing federal law does allow for another country to process asylum claims of migrants headed toward the United States, but only if that country and the U.S. enter into a “safe third country” agreement. The U.S. does have such a pact with Canada but does not have one with either Mexico or Guatemala.

The Trump administration’s asylum guidelines also could face lawsuits under international law if they result in sending migrants back to unsafe countries. The U.N. Refugee Agency issued a statement Monday that said the U.S. has raised the burden of proof on asylum speakers beyond the international legal standard.

Trump’s policies — driven by toughonimmigration adviser Stephen Miller — have been pushing the limits of the law in other ways. For example, a courtordered consent decree requiring humane treatment of migrant children and limiting their detention to 20 days. The courts have restrained the administration on that count, as well as its attempt to consider any migrant who crosses the southern border at a port of entry as ineligible for asylum.

There is no doubt that the U.S. is struggling to cope with an influx of Central American refugees at the southern border. The genuine solutions would involve a substantial increase in support to address the conditions in those countries that are causing residents to flee, as well as more resources to process the asylum requests.

Instead, much of what the Trump administration is doing is only aggravating a humanitarian crisis that is a stain on this nation’s expressed values.