Asylum Isn't As Crazy as Trump Claims
The president-elect can't tell political asylum from an insane asylum. But a little linguistic history reveals a more compelling American tradition.

During several campaign rallies this year, Donald Trump denounced the political practice of asylum—namely, the legal status requested by foreigners fleeing political persecution and violence and entering the United States via a port of entry.
Yet, Trump frequently coupled his criticisms of asylum with unrelated comments about mental institutions, creating confusion about his understanding of the issue. In front of a New Jersey crowd in May, Trump claimed that "the mental institution population is down because they're taking people from insane asylums [in foreign countries]" and sending them to the United States.
"You know what the difference is, right?" he asked the crowd. "An insane asylum is a mental institution on steroids."
Trump's stream of consciousness also roped in Hannibal Lecter, the violent and institutionalized antagonist from The Silence of the Lambs. After singing the serial killer's praises, Trump—never one for logical transitions—launched into his traditional anti-immigrant vitriol:
But Hannibal Lecter, congratulations. The late, great Hannibal Lecter. We have people that have been released into our country that we don't want in our country, and they're coming in totally unchecked, totally unvetted. And we can't let this happen. They're destroying our country, and we're sitting back. And we better damn well win this election because if we don't, our country is going to be doomed.
This verbal diarrhea left many observers questioning whether Trump understood asylum or was really confusing the concept of political refuge with mental institutions.
The Etymology of Asylum
Accounts of the word's origin differ. Long before the word became associated with mental health institutions, asylum was more closely aligned with the concept of sanctuary.
The earliest version of the word dates back to the 15th century. From the 1438 long-form poem The Fall of Princes, English poet John Lydgate wrote about "asilum" as, according to one translation, "a place of refuge and succours…to receyue all foreyn trespassours."
Asylum derives from the ancient Greek word asylos (a- "without" and sylos- "the right of seizure") and was originally defined as a "sanctuary or inviolable place of refuge and protection for criminals and debtors, from which they cannot be forcibly removed without sacrilege." In ancient Greece, places of worship once granted safe harbor to those seeking protection from extrajudicial violence. If the accused made it into the church, it was both taboo and sacrilegious to attempt to extract them.
This practice dates back even further. In first century Rome, several communities allowed temples, altars, and other sacred spaces the privilege of protecting fugitives, including escaped slaves, debtors, and other alleged criminals escaping punishment. The practice became so widespread that the Roman Emperor Tiberius, troubled by the perceived lawlessness, legally confined the practice. Tiberius limited jus asyli—"the right of protection"—to a select few temples.
Tiberius' inquiry proved to be a legal rabbit hole. Some Greek cities demanded the emperor grandfather-in their legacy asylum practices, claiming their legal prerogative predated the empire's. Circa fifth century B.C., communities like Athens, Sparta, and Macedonia resettled Persian asylees and refugees, afraid to return home for fear of being labeled traitors on the wrong side of the Greco-Persian Wars.
The word asylum didn't connote psychiatric hospitals and mental illness until the turn of the 18th century. Even then, British reformers demanded "moral asylum" and more humane treatment for those suffering from mental illness.
Over time, asylum replaced more pejorative terminology associated with the hospitals. The change in legal language used to codify Victorian-age institutions demonstrates this pattern. For example, the Madhouse Act of 1774 (which codified the first legal framework for the once-unregulated market for psychiatric hospitals) starkly contrasts with the County Asylums Act of 1808 (which established publicly subsidized asylums as an alternative to incarceration for the mentally ill in the U.K.).
Political Asylum Is Inextricably Linked to American History
Before the American Revolution, commentators characterized the American colonies as a haven for those yearning for liberty. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote about how the American colonies served as "the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe."
In 1783, the last British ship left the New York harbor. Gen. George Washington and his troops celebrated America's independence at Fraunces Tavern, where the victorious general proclaimed, "May America be an Asylum to the persecuted of the earth!"
Washington repeated this line in subsequent communiques. In a letter to Francis Adrian van der Kemp, the first president wrote, "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe & agreeable Asylum to the virtuous & persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong."
Thomas Jefferson also championed asylum for nonnatives. During his first State of the Union address, Jefferson concluded: "And shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe?"
Even the Republican Party, though increasingly nativist today, openly embraced asylum. Republicans' 1864 party platform stated: "Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development of resources and increase of power to this nation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and just policy."
Global unrest in the late 19th and early 20th centuries resulted in a significant influx of immigration to the United States. Waves of immigration included Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians, and Serbs fleeing the Balkan Wars; Jews seeking safety from the antisemitic pogroms of Eastern Europe and the subsequent horrors of Germany's Third Reich; and Russians escaping Bolshevik violence and repression. Though asylum lacked a legal category, many immigrants who arrived at Ellis and Angel Islands during this time could easily meet the modern legal definition.
Unfortunately, these immigration waves also spurred nativist counteractions, prohibitionist bans, and inconsistent enforcement. Legislation like the Immigration Act of 1924 and the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 set strict quotas on origin nations. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 favored family reunification and employment over asylees. The Refugee Act of 1980, which was heralded as a historic victory for asylees, coincided with the federal government's disproportionate treatment of Cuban and Haitian immigrants: The former received a hero's welcome as a way to thumb the American nose at communism and Fidel Castro during the Cold War's zenith, while the latter was intercepted by the Coast Guard and escorted back to Jean-Claude Duvalier's despotic yet American-friendly regime. Finally, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 codified "expedited removal," the fast-tracked process used to deport noncitizens and avoid traditional removal proceedings.
Despite its turbulent history, asylum remains central to America's identity and immigration policy. Since 1990, the federal government has accepted more than 800,000 asylees—just slightly more than the population of North Dakota—and a fiscal analysis found they yield far more revenue than public costs, netting $123.8 billion over a 15-year period.
"Our nation is a nation of immigrants," President Ronald Reagan said in 1981. "More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands."
Asylum in the Age of Trump
In 2023, 6.8 million people sought asylum globally, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—a staggering 28 percent increase from the prior year. Considering the escalation of regional wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and prolonged drought and famine in Africa, 2024 will likely record an even larger number of displaced asylum seekers.
This burgeoning population of asylum seekers won't find respite with the incoming Trump administration. Instead, Trump will likely up the ante he set during his first term, in which he increased deportation of asylees, imposed excessive application fees, enacted transit bans, limited work permits for asylees seeking appellate review of their cases, and signed a litany of executive restrictions that decimated asylum.
But before he develops any new draconian, zero-tolerance measures to limit or ban asylum, Trump must reevaluate his understanding (or lack thereof) of the word. Asylum isn't about fictional characters like Hannibal Lecter—it's about real families fleeing persecution and seeking safety, freedom, and opportunity. The president-elect must disentangle asylum from its association with mental illness and embrace the vital tradition of offering refuge to the oppressed, which can strengthen our country's legacy and values and make America great again.
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
And he sends in the straw man in the very first paragraph, making it unnecessary to read the rest. Thanks, Jay.
Yeah. Scrolling straight to the comments the section title 'The Etymology of Asylum' catches my eye and my immediate thought is, "Oh God, this is Stooksberry making a retarded semantics argument again isn't it?"
Sure enough.
Same - saw they were talking about the Greek root word and moaned ‘GFC!’
Fleeing political persecution? More like economic migrants.
Port of entry? No - they came illegally.
The Marxist DNC does not tell the truth.
You poor ignorant fuckwads. So triggered.
Stop sockpuppeting, Shrike.
You also have to love the repeated trope that compares immigrants a century ago or more with people today on equal terms while not countenancing the changes in society here since then evoking the because before therefore now conceit. He seems as confused as he claims Trump to be while riding this horse of astute rectitude. Reason wants us to pay for this lazy writing.
"foreigners fleeing political persecution and violence" that they themselves created.
Something, something about sleeping in the bed you made.
Instead of running off to someone else's bed and repeating ones own mistakes.
Far better immigration vetting could be done just by getting the voting records of those who seek asylum because those who seek cover from their own doings are just escaping their own consequences.
You think those Honduran women and toddlers in 2018 created the problems in Honduras?
Those aren't women and toddlers crossing the border, asshole.
Fuck off and die, shitpile.
"Leftist wins Honduran presidential vote"
https://apnews.com/article/elections-honduras-caribbean-presidential-elections-tegucigalpa-88a1cba3fe8997ee7741d17eaa8367fb
Why Yes. Yes I do.
Without migrants who is going to burn women to death on the subway?
Babe Ruth?
Which says nothing about the practical reality of what the asylum status has become as a loophole to the normal immigration paths in such a way that is overwhelming our ability to process and absorb people.
Between 2020 and 2022 over 574,000 people applied for affirmative asylum in the USA, while grants of affirmative asylum were only over 24,000, which suggests that over 95% of affirmative asylum claims are insufficient to meet the criteria. What is to be done with that 95%? Meanwhile, there were over 537, 000 claims of defensive asylum over the same years (that is, people claiming asylum in order to resist deportation proceedings)..
Like all willfully ignorant MAGAts, you mindlessly spew the idiotic bleating points.
It's not a loophole. There wouldn't be anything resembling a loophole if Congress would adequately fund the asylum laws they created. Of course, fascist fuckwads like yourself have opposed that, as well.
Moar money needed!
Fuck off and die, TDS-addled shitpile.
It's fair for Americans to want asylum from asylum seekers which even if people have justified claims of persecution doesn't require American legally or morally to take on any and all of them and limiting that isn't a big issue the bigger problem has been abusing the term and allowing so many under the false guise of persecution but rather poverty, another limitless justification from progressives to justify mass flooding of the country with illegals.
MAGA? LOL... How's that.
All the leftards here (Charliehall, Sarcasmic, SQRLYS) biggest complaint is the National Defense budget as it is with most of the left as well as the left politicians ignoring/by-passing immigration laws (Obama's DACA).
No. It's not MAGA at all. It's Democrats.
Funny how the author doesn't give a shit that actual asylum is watered down and manipulated by NGOs to the point it means nothing. Dude should set himself on fire to help these people in their own countries if he actually cares but that won't get him the local political outcomes he desires.
LMAO, no one is confused about the usage of asylum.
They found asylum seekers going back 'home' to see family during vacation.
"...the political practice of asylum—namely, the legal status requested by foreigners fleeing political persecution and violence and entering the United States via a port of entry."
And what percentage of those seeking political asylum arrive in the country at port of entry vs illegally crossing the border?
Blasphemy!
You do know that Reason was funded to push for open borders, right? It's the only 'reason' that Reason exists - all the rest is window dressing to get you to the open borders propaganda.
I have no problems with opening the boarder a bit. I do have a problem with how the Liberal Socialists want to go about it. Right now it is a Cloward-Pivens attack on out Immigration system.
I like the signs about Jesus, Mary, and Jospeh despite the fact that the narrative beginning with Luke 2 is literally;
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world.1 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)2 And everyone went to their own town to register.3 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.4
They were literally returning to their home town in order to be counted by royal decree. I neither know nor care about your definitions of asylum or voluntary immigration, it speaks volumes *about you* when you try and co-opt the word of God to your political ends.
I didn’t read the article. Did he really try to use that part of the Christmas story as his example of asylum seeking?
Because that’s so epically retarded I don’t even know where to start. Especially when you consider that just a little bit later in the story they flee to Egypt to escape Herod (the government) trying to kill their son (and notably not so Joseph can find gainful employment).
And once Herod was gone, they returned to Judea, quite unlike these current "refugees". That said, it was more like moving out of state for a bit as both places were subject to Roman rule.
The story of Joseph and Mary fleeing to Egypt to avoid Herod's decree to kill firstborn sons would be more relevant.
I came here to say that, though I think they are talking about when they went to Egypt after Herod started baby-hunting.
But even then it's a phony narrative, because Egypt and Judea had both been integrated to Rome at that point and were the same country, just different provinces. As they had been for hundreds of years before that under the Seleucids. It was like ducking the mayor of New York by going to Newark, not China.
Moreover, I came to America because I'm like Joseph/Mary and my kids like Christ is about as blasphemous and self-righteous as it gets.
"Asylum Isn't As Crazy as Trump Claims"
As employed, it is worse and you emoting won't change that.
thee article actually underlines the issue but tries to ignore it.
"Since 1990, the federal government has accepted more than 800,000 asylees...."
so, in 35 years we have had 800k people with asylum claims that were deemed legitimate. we have twice that many people waiting to go before a judge right now. most requesting asylum will be ultimately denied. a large number of those requesting asylum are not legitimate claims, they are abusing the system. this is the drain on our system that makes stirring up hate so easy.
The same side that supports asylum also argues that America is the only country that has school shootings.
Why do they not warn people fleeing violence from other countries that if they live in America, their children will be in danger from dying in a school shooting?
Thats a good point.
America is the only country with violent ghettoes where people are shot to death for wearing the wrong color clothes.
Why would foregners fleeing violence flee to America?
If you have to pass through 19 other countries to get to the United States, you're not seeking asylum, you're just immigrating.
More to the point, if you water down what "asylum" means to the point where it means "everyone who wants to come here," well then you completely remove the point of having a special "asylum" status in the first place. "Jews fleeing the holocaust" and "people being imported to undercut the existing price of low skill labor" are two entirely different scenarios.
"people being imported to undercut the existing price of low skill labor"
Meatpacking plants are where a high school grad used to be able to go to learn a trade and get a decent wage, but now they're stuffed with Mexican and Venezuelan teens supplied by the cartels who take all their meager under-the-table wages from them and barely feed them.
It's literal slavery, but the evil people who enable this all like to talk like they're moral pillars.
It's nothing new at the meatpacking plants, at least since the 1980s. The feds have been raiding the plants for decades now, with the notable exceptions of the Obama and Biden Administrations.
From 2006: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2006/12/12/meatraids
In fact, it's not the production of crops that employs illegal aliens in agriculture, it's the meatpacking plants. If they're all deported, your lettuce and tomatoes will be fine. The price of chicken might go up a bit.
https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/09/18/illegal-immigration-mississippi-ice-raid-poultry-industry-immigrant-workers/2100785001/
These companies need to start feeling the heat from this. They also need to improve working conditions within their (shitty) plants.
And they helped companies such as Koch Foods and Peco Foods — both of which were raided last month, yet still face no charges — rake in billions in revenue.
It must be some other Koch Industries, and not the benefactor to Reason.com.
Stooksberry, a Guatemalan man just lit someone on fire on the subway.
Scenes from New York should be something else tomorrow
Another democrat success story!
And this article is, of course, weak-manning.
The argument really isn't 'should asylum' exist - its that our current criteria for granting it are crazy.
We should be following the asylum criteria set forth by our international treaties. Period. Which means accepting only people that are in mortal danger form government or related forces. And those people are supposed to settle in the closest safe country.
>"May America be an Asylum to the persecuted of the earth!"
We're not getting the persecuted though. We're getting persecutors.
Political asylum is only necessary as an exception to the extreme restrictions already imposed on routine immigration. If we let anyone visit or live in the United States indefinitely as long as they support themselves there would be no need to carve out political asylum to bypass immigration quotas. Another possible exception would be that political refugees might technically be criminal in their home nations for political reasons without necessarily being "criminals" in the American sense for denial of entry.
Great. Get rid of the welfare state, and we can remove all of the extreme restrictions. To remove the restrictions while the welfare state is in place would mean taxpayers have to fund the global poor.
I categorically and totally reject the notion that we should hold one set of reforms hostage to another totally unrelated set of reforms. I also totally reject your assertion that "the welfare state" is any kind of problem in relation to the immigration problems, since Federal welfare is not authorized for immigrants. If your local idiots want to give your tax money to immigrants it's YOUR local problem not mine. Illegal immigrants and immigrants in general are much less likely to commit violent crimes and far more likely to contribute productive work while they're here than people born legally in America are. So go blow it out your ...
We have people that have been released into our country that we don't want in our country
How is this "verbal diarrhea?"
That is literally the exact mentality that an overwhelming amount of Americans share.
A blowhard explanation on the etymology of "asylum" doesn't change that. The issue isn't political asylum. It's We have people that have been released into our country that we don't want in our country.
Does America NOT get a say in that?
Does she not get to say: "I, America, do NOT want you - the Chinese communist, the Muslim terrorist, the Latin American trafficker - within my borders. At all. I should just kill you on general principle, but instead you can leave and never come back."
Why does America not get to say that?
"Asylum Isn't As Crazy as Trump Claims."
Sebastian Zapeta agrees 100%.
Trump is saying that countries are clearing out their insane asylums and sending the patients to America to claim (political) asylum. What's hard to understand about that, unless you have TDS? You don't believe it? Go sleep on a New York subway train.
nypost.com/2024/12/22/us-news/suspect-accused-of-setting-nyc-subway-rider-on-fire-arrested/
The reality is, just like other countries with more sane immigration policies, we don’t owe a foreign national entry into our country, whatever the reason. We shouid adopt the immigration policies similar to most other countries: If you have a good paying job or can support your self otherwise and have no serious criminal history, you can come here on a two to three year trial basis and, if you remain self-supporting and abide by our laws, you can then get in line in the citizenship application process. If it turns out that you can’t support yourself or commit a crime greater than a traffic ticket, you are deported back to where you came from.
Jose Ibarra, who murdered Laken Riley was just seeking asylum.
Sebastin Zapeta who set a woman on fire in a New York subway was seeking asylum.
How many other innocent women and children are going to be raped and murdered by those "seeking asylum"?
By the way, both of those POS should be executed ASAP.