The U.S. Immigration System Needs To Do More To Help Uyghurs
Their immigration struggles are indicative of broader issues in America’s refugee and asylum infrastructure.

The world has known for years now that Uyghurs, members of a Turkic ethnic group who number about 13.5 million and mostly live in China, are experiencing persecution by the Chinese government. A number of international observers and human rights advocates argue the Chinese government is attempting genocide, but Uyghurs looking for an escape from China's brutality have had a difficult time securing relief through America's refugee and asylum pathways, and their immigration struggles are shared by far too many vulnerable people seeking an escape to the United States.
Under U.S. immigration law, asylum seekers are people who are already present on American soil or at a port of entry and apply for the right to remain in the country. Refugees, on the other hand, apply for resettlement in the U.S. from abroad. Approval to stay in the U.S. under either category requires that applicants prove they have been "persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group." The two pathways are intended to help the world's most vulnerable people escape danger.
In the past two fiscal years, however, the U.S. has admitted zero Uyghur refugees. Many Uyghurs who have been lucky enough to reach the U.S. through other pathways, like student and travel visas, also face an uncertain future—as Caroline Simon reported for Roll Call yesterday, there are "roughly 800 Uyghurs caught in the backlog of hundreds of thousands seeking asylum in the U.S." Until they receive asylum, they can't apply to sponsor stranded family members.
It's undeniable that Uyghurs broadly fall into the categories outlined for refugees and asylum seekers. In the name of cultural erasure, they've been subject to mass sterilization, kept from speaking the Uyghur language, and forced to pledge loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. Adrian Zenz, senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, told NPR that China's treatment of Uyghurs is "probably the largest incarceration of an ethnoreligious minority since the Holocaust."
Tursunay Ziyawudun, a Uyghur woman interviewed by Reason's Noor Greene, recounted that "she spent 11 months in jail for no stated reason." Ziyawudun was arrested because of her ethnic background; in detention camps, she was tortured with electric equipment, beaten, and raped. The United Nations estimates that up to 1.5 million Uyghurs may be in Chinese internment camps, potentially facing the same treatment as Ziyawudun.
Despite well-documented and widely decried persecution, very few Uyghurs seeking sanctuary in the U.S. have secured approval to settle here. That's partially a result of where they're coming from. As Time magazine reports, "It's next to impossible for Uyghurs in China, most of whom are under extraordinary state surveillance, to access refugee resettlement systems."
Still, the State Department "says Uyghurs outside of China are currently able to access the refugee resettlement program." Though the agency doesn't publicly disclose how many applications are being processed, an estimated 1–1.6 million Uyghurs live outside China. "There are thousands of Uyghur refugees around the world who may be returned to China…if deported," Tahir Hamut Izgir, a Uyghur asylum seeker in the U.S., told Voice of America.
The disappointing immigration relief for Uyghurs comes on the heels of a whole lot of political talk. Congress previously passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2020, which imposed sanctions on "individuals and entities responsible for human rights abuses" against Uyghurs. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have referred to China's persecution of Uyghurs as a genocide. Just last month, the Biden administration announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics, citing China's "egregious human rights abuses and atrocities in Xinjiang," the nominally autonomous region within China where the majority of the country's Uyghurs live. Not long before that, the Biden administration recommended that at-risk Uyghurs receive priority access to U.S. refugee resettlement.
The plight of the Uyghurs waiting on immigration answers points to broader issues in America's refugee and asylum infrastructure. For one, the U.S. has been taking in astonishingly low numbers of refugees lately, hitting a record low of 11,411 in fiscal year 2021. Over 667,000 asylum seekers are waiting for their cases to be resolved, and they face an average wait time of around 1,600 days, or 54 months. There's also the issue of the "last-in, first-out" policy, under which asylum applicants who have arrived in the U.S. more recently are processed first. This means many people who have been present in the U.S. for years cannot petition for visas for family members, which propagates what the Center for Migration Studies of New York calls "the 'other family separation' crisis."
Immigration relief for Uyghurs has enjoyed a fair deal of bipartisan support, with figures like Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) saying that "they probably have the most compelling case in the world right now for asylum." But thousands of vulnerable people around the world could benefit if reforms proposed for Uyghurs—like quicker case adjudication and prioritizing applications from those most at risk—were applied more widely across the U.S. immigration system.
"I'm thankful that people care about what's happening to my people," Ziyawudun told Reason. "But I wish there was some kind of practical thing that could be done. Just speed up. Whatever you've been doing, just speed it up." While immigration relief alone won't solve the plight of the Uyghurs, speeding up those processes is something that the U.S. government should prioritize—and that sense of urgency should guide how we process other vulnerable people seeking refuge here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Only if they will be a net positive and not a financial burden to the currently bloated welfare system.
So a Uyghur who has suffered at the hands of Chinese persecution, by, say, having his/her property confiscated, should be denied asylum in the US because that person would be a net burden on the welfare state, because that person has no money, because that person had all his/her possessions stolen by an act of persecution. Got it.
You tell 'em, jeff.
It's like people can't comprehend how desperate someone in that situation would be — and how eager they'd be to work for pitifully low wages here in the States.
#ReasonsImmigrationAgendaIsAllAboutHumanitarianism
There are probably 50 countries between the US and China that they can get asylum from. America isn't the world's abuse shelter.
Jeff. Youre the same person who said companies and government shouldn't put any pressure on China because it was up to individuals to choose to buy slave labor or not. Lol.
I’d be willing to trade Jeff straight up for one of them.
Yet Jeff thinks his Nikes, iPhone and his New York Knicks jersey are a-okay.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/legacy-lies-trump-weaponized-mistruths-presidency/story?id=75335019
Can you keep up with the lies?
Can you?
So. Many. Lies....
"So a Uyghur who has suffered at the hands of Chinese persecution, by, say, having his/her property confiscated, should be denied asylum in the US because that person would be a net burden on the welfare state, because that person has no money, because that person had all his/her possessions stolen by an act of persecution. Got it."
It is sad and it is tragic. But why is it OUR responsibility?
We are not the solver of all the ills of the world.
Naturally, they shouldcbe screened for disease and for whether or not they are bono fide criminals, Jihadi terrorists, or foreign spies. Also, they should be self-supporting or sponsored by a U.S. Citizen. But beyond that, there shouldn't be a problem.
Back in the Eighties, I worked with a Cambodian who was a survivor of Pol Pot's Killing Fields who lost friends and family in Kampuchea. He was a very hard worker and was saving to open up his own furniture store. Even though he chain-smoked Cowboy Killers and smelled of leeks, I admired the fellow.
Anyone like him is more than welcome in my nation and he could also teach us much on life in Totalitarian Utopias, since our Gummint Skoolz do such a half-assed job of it.
Indeed, since Uyghurs are not US-born, that means Reason.com's benefactor Charles Koch would find their labor quite cost-effective. Possibly not as cost-effective as Mexicans, I admit, but certainly cheaper than hiring anyone born in this country.
#OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch
#CheapLaborAboveAll
that asshole Lebron James should pay for importation of the Uighurs as they further his bottom line through jersey sales
And Kapernick, who shills for Nike while calling the NFL combines a slave sale.
It is funny, though, watching the NFL go woke...and STILL get called a slave operation by a mediocre former NFL QB.
We should start by blowing up the three gorges dam
No.
A much better solution is to boycott Chinese made everything. Every dollar we give them is more money to persecute the Uyghurs.
That is the solution. However, you do know it comes with an extreme amount of pain (including war), right?
War with China is inevitable, they are an expanding empire. After Taiwan, I suspect they'll start sending tourism babies to our island colonies.
As for the pain aspect, I fully expect there to be poverty expansion, but I view this as a overdue course correction.
With AI, automation, 3-D Printing, and a Maker subculture, we in the U.S. can make our own cheap plastic goodies and higher-scale goodies as well without Red China's help.
Mind you, we would have to send all the alphabet soup regulators, zoning board members, union bosses, and the NIMBY crowd to Beijing, but they would be at home there and Free-Market Capitalism could be at home here once again!
Yes bring some over and have a group of them at every presidential news event highlighting their plight and have them greet the winners of every sporting championship. I'd love to see the NBA players have to look their victims in the eye.
Uyghurs could go to South Korea, Thailand, India, Indonesia, etc... Why do they have to come to the United States? We're not the world's dumping ground.
And this is our problem, why? Did we send them to China in the first place?
As always, a Fiona Harrigan column an excellent place to post a plug for Ed Dutton's excellent new book,
Witches, Feminism, and the Fall of the West
"The archetype of the "witch" is burnt deep into the European psyche, recurring again and again in folklore and fairytales. But is she merely the stuff of fantasy? Roald Dahl warned that witches don't always don black hats and ride on broom sticks. They "dress in ordinary clothes, and look very much like ordinary women. . . . That is why they are so hard to catch."
In Witches, Feminism and the Fall of the West, Edward Dutton examines the history of witches and witch-hunting in light of evolutionary psychology. Throughout the centuries, witches were ostracized across Europe and often condemned and executed for sorcery and harming children. They generally adhered to a type: witches were low-status, anti-social, and childless, and their very presence was viewed as poisonous to the community. Dutton demonstrates that witches did, in their way, represent a maladaptive mentality and behavior, which undermined Europe's patriarchal system. When times got tough-that is, when Europe got poorer or colder-the witches were persecuted with a vengeance.
Today, the evolutionary situation has been turned on its head. The intense selection pressures of the past have been overcome by the Industrial Revolution and its technological marvels. Modern witches survive and thrive in the postmodern West, still possessed by the motivations and dispositions of their sisters of yore. "Sorcery" (nihilism and self-hatred) is no longer taboo but has become a high-status ideology. Roald Dahl was all-too correct. Witches do exist, and they mean to do us harm."
Cringey, Creepy, Alt-Right Edgelord says what?
In your vernacular everyone to the right of Pol Pot is a cringey, creepy, alt-right edgelord. Also considering that about half your posts on this site read like an edgy 14 year old atheist on reddit despite your being a middle aged genxer, you may want to cool it with using words like "cringey" unironically.
One, how do you know what my "vernacular" is?
Two, I put anybody who advocates burning so-called "witches" in the same Totalitarian category as Pol Pot and his Utopian Commie predecessors.
Three, Izzat chu, Mother's Lament? I told you I've never been a member of Reddit, much as I like some of the funnier memes.
Oh, I meant to add: Fuck off, Witch-Burners!
"The U.S. Immigration System Needs To Do More To Help Uyghurs"
Congratulations for getting it all backwards again.
The case you should be making is why doing more to help the Uyghurs is in the best interests of the American people. And if you can't make that case, I suggest you find someone who can and watch them closely. Neither I nor the United States is here for the benefit of the Uyghurs, but the Uyghurs have as much to offer the American people as so many other immigrants have over generations and continue to do so. If you want think the legitimate purpose of the U.S. government is to help other people, I suggest you just come out of the closet as a socialist already. The legitimate purpose of the U.S. government is to protect our rights.
I’d trade Fiona for one of them too.
The legitimate purpose of the U.S. government is to protect our rights.
I agree, Ken! But, who precisely is the "our" in your statement? Does it refer only to citizens? Of course not, immigrants also have rights. In fact all of humanity has rights, don't they? Isn't that the founding premise of this nation and of the entire libertarian system of thought? The legitimate purpose of ANY legitimate government anywhere, is to protect individual rights, NOT JUST of its citizens (although it should protect the rights of citizens first and foremost), but of all humanity. That is what distinguishes legitimate governments which wield legitimate authority, and illegitimate governments which are just thugs with guns.
So what again is your argument against offering asylum to the persecuted Uyghurs?
Sez who?
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
--John Quincy Adams
Then why is the United States uniquely obligated to take in a persecuted population when there are 3 dozen other countries thousands of miles closer whose legitimate purpose is to welcome all of humanity with open arms and open wallets? Is there any special reason why your country of Canada can't take them, cytotoxic?
The US government has very limited obligations towards non-citizens: generally, it needs to protect non-citizens from violence and theft while on US soil. That's all.
Beyond that, non-citizens have no rights under the US constitution; if US voters choose to, the US government can send any and every non-citizen packing tomorrow.
The US government and the US taxpayer have no moral or legal obligation to persecuted Uyghurs. The US government has no legitimate power even to interfere in the affairs of the Chinese government or the Uyghurs.
Oh dear. Look, I have no problem with opening up our immigration system more, but talk about stretching the premise of an article to fit an agenda. Sheesh.
Who doesn't have one of those friends who makes every tragedy about them? "I was so sorry to hear about your dad dying! I wish you'd have called me to tell me about it. When I heard, I was just so devastated. I couldn't go to work for days, I was so distraught..."
The Uyghur genocide is impacting 13.5 Million people. Millions are being interned in camps where they are beaten, raped, forcefully sterilized and brainwashed into forgetting an amazing ancient culture. On the other hand, 800 Uyghurs are currently waiting to get asylum status in the United States.
It isn't that I don't feel for those 800 Uyghurs- please let them in immediately. But of all the ways that we might impact the plight of Uyghurs, I can guarantee that flogging the drum about these 800 is way down on the list (especially when my bet is that if they managed to get on our list, they are probably well connected and not even in China in the first place).
My biggest gripe against Shikha Dalmia when she was here was that there wasn't a problem too big, obscure or distant that couldn't be laid at the feet of American Immigration Restrictionism. Every issue was myopically viewed through the lense of our immigration policy. I kind of like Harrigan, so I really hope she isn't headed down this big road.
The Uyghur genocide is a terrible fucking crime against humanity. Giving 800 Uyghurs asylum is not going to do anything meaningful to stop that genocide, other than perhaps make people think they are doing something. It is a feel good measure, and Reason's powder would probably be better spent in articles like the one Nick Gillespie did earlier last week directly confronting the genocide head on.
The world's deadliest plague has so far killed nearly 1,000,000 Americans, and now we want to let in 800 unvaccinated Uyghurs? Let's keep things in perspective.
More collectivism from Reason, hooray!
Wait, we have millions of
Mexicanpeople from Central and South America in camps and cages at the US border, so the suggestion is we transfer the Uyghurs from cages and camps where they are now to cages and camps at the US border?But the South, Central and Mexicans are not Muslims. And that is the difference.
History:
The first Han emperor reigned from Xian where (to the great good fortune of the world), the farmer found the terra-cotta warriors after the idiocy of the cultural revolution.
That was the eastern termihroarhus of the Silk Road (seems auto-correct no longer works on the Reason web site as does little else)
Suffice to say, the Han extended their occupation west in the hopes of grabbing the skim off the Silk Road trade, but the traders learned quickly to avoid the costs ("The Silk Road: A New History" Hansen)
They are now yet trying one more time.
Immigration judges ask awkward questions like "why didn't you go to India, Bangladesh, Russia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan if where you were was so bad?" The answer in many cases is "no free stuff." It makes one wonder about the relative smarts of the American voter.
It is so strange people who rant that America shouldn't be the worlds policeman nevertheless believe America should be the world's social worker and welfare funder.
Also a bit strange to see people who hail America as the beacon of freedom, yet seek to keep those suffering the worst sorts of persecution from coming here, or at the very least lament it.
You mean the people like you who are enthused to the point of sexual arousal at the prospect of roving bands of Muslim rape gangs enriching our already wonderful inner-city culture but the Christians in the middle east suffering an actual, no-shit genocide should rejoice in their martyrdom and shut their grumbling mouths? Like that you pathetic piece of shit?
So, because these insular, ethnocentric Muslims refuse to assimilate in their own country, you want to bring them here? Seriously?
Uyghurs are not our friends.
What's going on with them in China is the result of them trying to pakistan off a chunk of China.
And that's a perfectly legitimate thing for them to want to do.
But it's not our fight. It's not our business. It's between China and the Uyghurs in the narrow sense, and between the Muslim world and China in the wider sense.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not read the word "Muslim" as applied to the Uyghurs. The Chinese govt does not like Muslims. They are scared of Muslims. They see France, Afghanistan, Britain and they know about statistics and multiplication. They do not want a Trojan Horse in China. Is that hard to understand? Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political movement. Islam's goals are not China's goals. It's as simple as that.
Regardless of what you think of Islam, the simple fact is that Muslims who are being oppressed in China because of their religion should be given refuge and asylum by other Muslim nations. Having them come to the US is absurd.
Hey remember when millions of Christians were brutally slaughtered and displaced from their historic homelands throughout the middle east after America obliterated the stable governments in the region and put radical Islamic theocrats into power and Reason wrote breathless articles about they all should be transported to America at taxpayer expense? Because I don't. Although I suppose it's encouraging to find that there's at least *something* that could make Chuckie Koch spit Xi's micropenis out of his mouth.
What do Uyghurs have to do with the US? They should seek asylum in any of the neighboring countries with similar cultures, languages, and religions. The US has no moral, legal, or other obligation to Uyghurs.