The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Russian Dissenters Fleeing Putin Often Face Abusive Immigration Detention Upon Arrival in the US
Such mistreatment is both unjust in itself and harmful to US economic and foreign policy interests.
In my last post, I highlighted David Bier's helpful summary of the major ways in which the Biden Administration has improved immigration policy. But one area where Biden has fallen woefully short is the treatment of Russians fleeing Vladimir Putin's increasingly repressive dictatorship. A recent New York Times article reports that Russian political dissenters who enter the US to seek asylum are often subjected to prolonged and cruel detention:
As Vladimir Putin cracks down on dissidents and arrests draft dodgers, growing numbers of Russians are making their way across the U.S. southern border. But contrary to their expectations of asylum and freedom, many of them are being put into immigration detention centers that resemble prisons….
Everyone who touches American soil has the right to claim asylum, though it is granted only to those who can prove they were persecuted in their home country based on their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
Many asylum seekers are released and allowed to argue their cases later in court. But thousands are sent to detention centers, where it is difficult to secure lawyers and collect evidence, and the chances of winning asylum are extremely slim….
"Proportionately, compared to people from other countries, there are more Russians being sent to detention," said Svetlana Kaff, a San Francisco-based immigration lawyer who said she has been flooded with requests for help….
[M]any said they had come to the United States thinking they would be welcomed as allies in America's push for democracy in Russia and Ukraine.
Olga Nikitina, who fled Russia with her husband after he was imprisoned there multiple times, spent five months in the same facility as Ms. Shemiatina. "The whole time I was there, they treated us like garbage," said Ms. Nikitina, 33. "I called hotlines, but it did not help in any way…."
Ivan Sokolovski, 25, another activist, has been held at Pine Prairie for seven months. He recently lost his asylum case and said he fears that he will be deported to his death. "It would have been more humane to be shot dead at the border than to be held in prison so long," he said….
Russian asylum-seekers interviewed said they have been at the mercy of guards who treat them with indifference and, not infrequently, hostility….
Conditions in immigration detention centers are sufficiently bad that one Russian dissenter who experienced them told the Times that "I came to realize that I had left Russia for a place that was just like Russia."
Without more extensive data, it is not clear whether Russian asylum seekers are subjected to especially bad treatment because of their nationality, or whether they are "merely" being subjected to abuse at same rate as other asylum seekers. But, either way, the situation is unconscionable.
The ultimate solution to the plight of asylum seekers to is a major general liberalization of immigration policy that would make the process of entering the US legally much easier, more accessible, and faster. But even within the confines of the current system, there are many more humane alternatives to prolonged immigration detention.
In previous writings, I have explained in some detail why opening Western doors to Russians fleeing Putin is the right policy on moral, strategic, and economic grounds (see here, here, and here). Doing so would simultaneously rescue people from horrific oppression, promote US economic growth and scientific innovation, deprive Putin of valuable manpower, and give us a leg up in the the international war of ideas against Putin's regime. The case has been furthered strengthened by Putin's "partial mobilization" order, which subjects hundreds of thousands of Russians to the grave injustice of conscription for the purpose of waging an unjust war. The main beneficiary of US mistreatment of Russian refugees is Vladimir Putin, who can use it to bolster his claims that the West is hostile to Russians, as such.
I have also criticized the argument that we should bar Russians because they are responsible for the war in Ukraine. The same goes for the more general claim that citizens of unjust regimes have a duty to stay home and "fix their own countries."
Because I am a Russian Jewish immigrant myself, some may suspect that I am advocating for Russians fleeing Putin out of some sort of ethnic or racial sympathy or bias. Not so. I have also long advocated for openness to Ukrainian refugees, as well. In a previous post, I listed some of my extensive writings advocating for opening Western doors to predominantly non-white groups of migrants and refugees. Since then, I have also written this piece on the case for opening Western doors to Chinese fleeing their governments cruel "Zero Covid" policies and other repression.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Conditions in immigration detention centers are sufficiently bad that one Russian dissenter who experienced them told the Times that "I came to realize that I had left Russia for a place that was just like Russia."
Ignorant ex-Russian repeats slander from Russian.
The alleged "dissenter" is probably just ignorant. What's Somin's excuse?
Hm, "Bob from Ohio," I wonder who's more ignorant, you or a Russian dissenter who made it to the US and spent a bunch of time in our gulag.
Oh I mean I don't wonder.
It is time to allow mass Palestinian asylum migration. Israel will never allow a two state solution that is anything but a rump/puppet state and in a one state solution the Palestinians will never be given full citizenship. Open the gates to these intelligent/hard working/ well educated people. We can easily absorb 10M of them. Heck Martha's Vinyard is about 70% the area of Gaze..so we can put a million there. another few million in New York City and DC. The political diversity they would bring would would allow NY State to again elect liberty loving non-bolsheviks....open the gates Joe...love is love, no one is illegal, there are no borders...
We really want Palestinians?
In MV, NYC and LA? Yes. Let the leftists of those areas live with the people they care so much about, let them have the consequences visited on their neighbors, their family and themselves for a bit. Plus the fireworks displays will be awesome and not confined to a few occasions per year but expanded to random busses and shops year round.
Somin is on a roll. Watch out.
In the 1980s, I read about the Spetsnaz and wondered how they expected to get into the countries they were at war with to carry out all that sabotage they were supposed to do. Now I know.
Yes, in light of stories like this one I would agree it's incumbent on us to be pretty aggressive in screening any new would-be immigrants from Russia:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/11/28/a-russian-spy-couple-caught-in-the-burbs-in-sweden-the-americans-plays-out-in-real-life_6005900_4.html
Usually Prof. Somin at least spends a couple sentences explaining why we're stupid for having national security concerns, but I didn't see that here.
I'll tell you why. Entering the country as an asylum seeker would be the stupidest possible way for a spy to do it. Oh look, it only took one sentence.
At least 21 discovered spies in South Korea had entered as refugees. They also have a very restrictive asylum system.
From North Korea! That's a bit of a different situation, don't you think?
Sure. NK refugees are even more strictly checked over, detained for longer periods of time, and refused work for at least half a year and yet spies from a closed country manage to make it. South Korea's system is famously hard to deal with.
As for our system, Yusuf Abdi Ali was a known war criminal who managed to avoid deportation somehow and then passed all the necessary TSA and FBI background checks to work at an airport. Each agency claimed they already knew he was a war criminal. He is not particularly smart nor skilled. You think Russian spies would have a harder go of it? Or perhaps easier because, afaik, Russia doesn't publish a database of their spies like Somalia does of their war criminals?
That's the whole point, silly.
The US also began deportation proceedings against Ali, but he returned to the country in 1996. It is unclear how he was able to re-enter the US.
You can bet it wasn't as an asylum seeker! Getting into the US is easy. Coming in as an asylum seeker would be the dumbest of all possible ways. There are tons of better ways for Russians to come to the US -- legally!
Now, as a North Korean intelligence agent trying to get into South Korea legally, there aren't a lot of other options.
I'm not sure why you think the differences really matter anyway. Both are the weaker of pairs of geopolitical rivals, with the rivalry based partially on ideology and partially on cementing elite wealth, their main targets are the opposite country, and they share information and techniques. On all things that matter for motivation, there's no real reason Russia shouldn't try to sneak in spies as refugees. They can just trade them for hostages later if they get caught and sentenced to prison. Besides, they can also recruit "refugees" as formal spies later; we know that China does similar things to pressure actual dissidents to return for arrest.
I'm certainly not about to begrudge someone who wants to leave Russia (although I'd encourage the guy who thinks the U.S. is "just like Russia" to start heading back).
But once these people have made it safely to Mexico (which seems to be the situation for everyone profiled in the article), why exactly is it necessary for them to seek refuge in the U.S. instead of there?
Because everyone on Earth is entitled to U.S. citizenship, and free iPhones, housing, health care, and education.
Duh.
I'd like to use that rational to offer asylum to every Palestinian. And immediate citizenship. Think of the benefits for liberty and against the left? And a more balanced foreign policy
Exactly....
And it isn't like they are doing it the RIGHT way....
Because the US has the money... (and the military/industrial secrets)...
It’s a good question. The international asylum rule supposedly is that you request asylum in the first country you make it to. You’re not supposed to get to maraud around looking for your ideal vacation spot.
I suspect it’s some combination of:
1. Marauding around looking for their ideal vacation spot
2. Mexico’s asylum procedures, which I know nothing about
3. Perhaps they have some connection to the US (friends / relatives)
4. Many said they had come to the United States thinking they would be welcomed as allies in America’s push for democracy in Russia and Ukraine.
That's not right. The international convention imposes obligations on countries, not on asylum seekers. It allows countries to deny asylum to those who passed through a safe country (not the "first country you make it to"), but it does not require asylum seekers to stop once they get to one.
Well, sure, the convention is applicable to states, not individuals, so that's trivially so.
Restating it, the rule is that you request asylum in the first (safe) country you make it to, because any subsequent country is free of any obligation to take your request seriously. They're still allowed to take it seriously, the convention just imposes no obligation to.
So when white people asking for asylum are mistreated, that becomes a problem.
Got it.
Ilya's guilty of many things. But pretending it's white/non-white thing isn't one of them.
Yeah, he's an all-purpose open-borders nut; he doesn't discriminate.
compare (source):
For my money, I'll take Mr. Derbyshire.
Biden knows that Russian immigrants tend to vote Republican. He surely does not want any of those.
Alternatively, the majority of screws in these detention centres are Republican voters who like Putin, so don't like the asylum seekers.
???
https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-president-vladimir-putin-biggest-enablers-power-oligarchs-world-leaders-2022-11
Putin's power doesn't exist in a vacuum: Here are 14 of his biggest enablers, from billionaire oligarchs to world leaders
Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Tucker Carlson are all on the list.
They still command a pretty significant Republican following, if you hadn't noticed.
If Donald Trump is Putin's friend, he doesn't need enemies.
Don't rely on cynicism to speculate up bad intent in those you disagree with. Surely there will be plenty of real policies you can be angry about without making stuff up.
Brett and Don have nothing but ill will driving their thinking. Don actually seems like he has some intelligence left, but it's fading fast. Don, meet Brett, your future self.
I remember when you used to act like you were above the partisan stupidity generally found here.
The façade has faded.
My Interior Decorator's Roosh-un, killed 16 Czechoslovakians,
His apartment looked like shit
The actual solution for prolonged detention is for Congressional Democrats to get off their obstructionist asses and fund expansion of immigration courts to process these claims, most of which are bogus, in days rather than months.
The result of which, mind, would not just be clearing the facilities faster, but reducing demand. Because when we reach the point where we can keep the claimants in detention until they're adjudicated, we eliminate the incentive to come and hope for an "alternative to detention". Because in actual practice under current conditions (not the decade-ago stats the Cato article disingenuously cites), the "alternative to detention" is simply releasing them to go hide in the general US population.
(By the way, what's the sure sign of a bogus claim? Anyone crossing the "southern border" without an explanation of why they expect to be persecuted in Mexico, or documentation of a rejection of their asylum claim by Mexico.)
After all, if Mexico was good enough for Leon Trotsky, it should be good enough for this latest bunch of Russkies.
People in general have plenty of reason to prefer the US to Mexico. People genuinely in risk of their lives or freedom if they return to their home country, though?
Mexico grants 95% of asylum claims. The US, by contrast, grants under 40%. If someone is genuinely seeking protection from serious persecution in their home country, they'd leap at the chance to apply for asylum in Mexico, rather than pass that up to take a gamble on applying in the US that will more likely than not result in their deportation to that home country.
Thread winner so far in the “informative comments opposed to my initial take” category, thx.
I note that the source of the 95% is here; it could of course be untrue (government officials may well lie to reporters).
Could that be done under reconciliation? Seems like it could. Maybe in the lame duck? Hey, I'm an optimist.
You DO recall the principle of "First country of asylum", right?
Literally no Russian whatsoever showing up on our Southern border qualifies for asylum, because they had to pass through multiple other countries along the way they could have safely stopped in.
Oh, come on. It takes Biden a few months to comprehend stuff like this. Give it until next year and he’ll be willing to give Russian asylum seekers $20,000 to pay off their student loans.
The linked article "What Biden Has Gotten Right on Immigration" is the most politically biased article I've read in a while. The main claim in it is that it's terrible to prevent hundreds of thousands of immigrants from coming in, living on welfare, and taking jobs that otherwise would be filled by citizens.
And if you believe that, you're likely foolish enough to be a Democrat …
Plus, it totally ignores the humanitarian catastrophe created at the southern border by the Biden Crime Family.
Epic fail.
w.
It's literally mostly a list of policies. It calls them good, but most of it is description of facts.
Though I would guess that someone who refers to the 'Biden Crime Family' finds epic fail bias in a lot of factual descriptions.
Prof Somin,
Tell us why the Russians couldn't apply for asylum in Mexico, or in any of the dozens of other countries they passed through on their way here?
Oh, surely not dozens, unless you mean in aggregate. But it's still a valid question which Somin will never address, because he doesn't grant in the first place that countries are entitled to control immigration.
(nitpicking ahead)
Prof. Somin,
You have a bad habit of using "myself" inappropriately.
"Because I am a Russian Jewish immigrant myself. . . . " (same phrase used in a previous post too)
It's probably because Russian is your first language and I'm guessing that's a normal usage in Russian.
But in English it comes off as very "Austin Power-ish."
Yeah Baby, Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a native speaker I think that was an entirely appropriate use of “myself” myself.
It was certainly permissible, but it would have better been located between "I" and "am".
It’s definitely permissible - in the right occasion, especially as an intensive pronoun which really isn’t needed for this post.