The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Let Asylum-Seeking Migrants Work
Taking this step would benefit both the migrants themselves and the American economy. It would also eliminate burdens on local governments.
The Chicago Tribune has an article describing how asylum-seeking migrants in the city are unable to support themselves, even as many employers in the city are desperate for workers. The article describes the sad situation of Venezuelans who fled socialism only to find themselves legally barred from working in the Land of the Free. There is a similar situation in New York City and elsewhere. The City struggles to accommodate asylum seekers who cannot support themselves, even as it also suffers from a major labor shortage.
Migrants seeking asylum can legally enter the US and then wait to have their claims adjudicated, which can take many months or even years. Meanwhile federal law prevents them from working for at least six months, and often even longer:
[Asylum] allows people to stay in the United States instead of being deported to a country where they fear persecution or harm. But those people must apply for asylum. If the government grants them that status, they get protection and the legal right to stay in the United States.
One challenge they face, however, is that the federal government requires applicants to wait 180 days or roughly six months before they are legally allowed to work, and they must apply for that permission to work, which is called "work authorization." Furthermore, that 180-day clock doesn't start until the government receives the first application.
The United States Custom and Immigration Services often takes much longer than 180 days to approve these applications. The government website noted that 80 percent of applications are processed in 12 months.
In addition, the USCIS is struggling to process the initial asylum applications. US Customs and Immigration Services is supposed to process the asylum application within 30 days, but it often takes much longer.
During this lengthy period when they are ineligible to work legally, asylum seekers have little choice but to rely on some combination of public assistance, charity, and precarious illegal employment. Ironically, this state of affairs allows immigration restrictionists to depict these migrants as a burden and crow over how liberal jurisdictions like NYC have trouble accommodating them. But the migrants are only a burden because they are legally barred from working to support themselves. You too would likely be a burden to society if the federal government forbade employers from hiring you!
There is an obvious solution to this problem: Let asylum seekers work legally immediately upon entering the United States. Doing so would be good for the migrants, enabling them to support themselves and their families. It would also benefit the US economy, particularly areas with major labor shortages. And it would alleviate burdens on local governments. Indeed, the latter would actually benefit from the extra tax revenue and economic growth generated by additional workers.
Maine GOP Senator Susan Collins and independents Angus King and Kyrsten Sinema have drafted the Asylum Work Authorization Act, a bill that would cut the work authorization time to 30 days. Sadly, I am not optimistic it will pass.
In May, the Biden Administration introduced a harsh new policy that makes it harder to for asylum-seekers to enter the US to begin with. But the new policy has been challenged in court, and may well be struck down, as was a similar Trump-era rule. Even if it remains in force, substantial numbers of asylum seekers will still enter the US by various pathways permitted under the policy, and work eligibility will continue to be a problem.
The work-authorization issue is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of flaws in the US asylum system. Among other things, we should expand the ridiculously and unjustly narrow criteria for eligibility, which exclude many people fleeing horrific violence and oppression. We should also take more steps to make legal migration easier. The Biden Administration has made some important progress on the latter front, but much more needs to be done.
In the meantime, however, expanding work eligibility for asylum seekers should be a relative no-brainer. It should not be hard to see that it's better if these people who entered the US legally can also support themselves legally, while they are here.
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
And then the argument is, well, they're working here and established a life, so it would be cruel not to grant their asylum request. If you give a mouse a cookie. Your arguments for granting any kind of immigration relief would be more persuasive if you'd ever found a single form of immigration restriction you DID think was okay. If you're just advocating for open borders all the time, then your proposals pretty justifiably seem like trying to bring the camel's nose into the tent.
Exactly. If we're going to do a migrant worker program, it should be single men only.
Trump disagrees…it should be hot young women…marriage status doesn’t matter. 😉
Who says anyone deserves to receive asylum in the USA?
The treaty that we signed, for one.
Operation Wetback Part Duex -- ship them ALL back!
Anyone who travels by land from Venezuela to the United States to seek asylum has crossed, at minimum, seven other countries.
It's not a "move anywhere you want free" card.
So, in fact, the illegal border crossers, claiming asylum (falsely or not), are an actual drain because they cannot legally work.
Thought so.
These people always talk out of both sides of their mouths.
Make it illegal for a group of people to work. Then pass harsh laws about being a burden and unable to work.
It’s the same authoritarian miracle that’s been done for centuries!
I would be open to a compromise where illegals can stay if they prove they are working and they have no dependence on any state assistance whatsoever. (Of course provided there would have to be a decent system in place to kick them out immediately unlike earlier compromises where 'safeguards' were agreed to then circumvented by the left) Are the Dems?
I would have no objection to saying that (with appropriate exceptions for people who can't work) asylum applicants be subject to a work requirement and expected to receive their support from work (as well as any relatives or similar sources of support) and not from the government.
You'd have to craft it carefully because you can't say that some 75 year old priest fleeing persecution has to work at a farm while his asylum application is processed. But the general notion should absolutely be that we want them to work, not receive public assistance.
They aren't illegals. Learn some immigration law.
They are illegals. The UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not provide a "move anywhere you want" card. They don't get to just cross seven other countries (from Venezuela) to claim asylum in the US.
Learn some immigration law.
The convention makes no such distinction in how it defines refugees, that I can see. Why do you think a refugee who went from Venezuela to the USA wouldn't meet the convention's definition of a refugee?
Attempting to control who can come in and who can’t is authoritarian? Having policies that discourage unauthorized entry is authoritarian?
C’mon.
If its so authoritarian they can just turn around and go back to the lands of freedom they came from.
Attempting to control who can come in and who can’t is authoritarian
That is at all what my comment objects to, bevis.
That was precisely the excuse that was used in the Soviet Union to send people to the gulag.
Clearly a lot of commenters here are fans of Stalin.
So, are you just flat-out opposed to any sort of restriction on immigration of any sort, at all, then?
No, I'm opposed to shit arguments that dehumanize people from other countries.
That does not mean I'm for open borders.
Written by someone who personally benefits from such a system.
What Gaslighto is not mentioning is that the Federal Civil Service (and related union rules) is essentially similar to that which he would abolish. The very job and wage protections that Gaslighto enjoys are what others would lose were these Illegal Aliens allowed to work.
The reason why we have so many job vacancies right now is that employers aren't willing to pay what the jobs are actually worth, particularly when work conditions are included. Working conditions are a big part of this, it is what almost led to a nationwide rail strike and what will likely lead to a UPS strike.
Bringing in foreigners who are willing to work for pennies and be exploited beyond belief totally screws the existing AMERICAN working class that is seeking to better itself. It create the very same situation that led to the Federal Civil Service laws.
We have a massive Federal deficit/debt -- let's replace Gaslighto and the rest with cheap immigrant labor. We'd save a fortune, it would suck to be Gaslighto, but we'd save a fortune....
If they work illegally, are they a drain? Probably almost all of the illegal border crossers who are not seeking asylum are working.
The author could first address the fact that the vast majority of “asylum seekers” are completely bogus. The DOJ says that between 2008-2019, 83% of those stopped at the border made asylum claims but fewer than 20% received asylum. ~45% never actually made their formal asylum claim. They are taking advantage and abusing the system, plain and simple.
If we didn’t have an overwhelming number of bogus asylum seekers, enabled even more so by the administration, there would probably be no problem employing actual asylum seekers. Fix this part of the system first before changing who is allowed work.
Not receiving asylum doesn't mean your claim is bogus.
Other than the process we have, how do you propose finding bogus claims? Do you just want to shut our asylum system down, or just keep the applicants from working as punishment?
Like your buddy Nige you are a stupid $^#!.
Not receiving asylum doesn’t mean your claim is bogus.
Do you want to talk us through that one ? You can be refused asylum even if you have a legally valid claim ? How does that work ? Or do you just mean that lots of asylum seekers just drift into the hinterland and never get adjudicated ? Or what ?
Other than the process we have, how do you propose finding bogus claims?
I think we need to hear why the process we have won't do.
Being denied an application does not mean you were it was bad faith to put in that application in the first place. There are plenty of judgement calls being made in the determination.
"I think we need to hear why the process we have won’t do" - rrgg seems to want to talk about that.
Some immigration judges reflexively deny asylum claims.
Do you have any hard evidence to back up that assertion?
Sure. Look at the statistics by immigration judge. The overall denial rate of asylum claims from 2017 - 2022¹ was 63%. But that varied by judge from as low as 1% (!) to as high as 100% (!) Now, you can point out that different regions of the country might have different immigrant profiles — the 1% denial guy was in San Francisco, while the 100% denial guy was in Houston, where denial rates are generally higher. But even if you look within specific immigration courts, there as massive variations. For example, just within the New York immigration courts, judges range from 7.1% denial to 87.7% denial.
Obviously one can argue that the low end ones are reflexively approving claims — and I'm not claiming otherwise — but someone who has never once approved a claim is not doing it based on the merits, either.
https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/judge2022/
¹I did not cherry pick these years. I just googled asylum denials by immigration judge and this was the first link.
So, you don't have evidence that judges (plural) reflexively deny asylum cases.
Good to know
Um, I cited the evidence. Even pointed you to the data. You're too stupid to understand it, or too lazy to look. Good to know.
Remain in MX is a good start, policy-wise = ...how do you propose finding bogus claims?.
Our policy is misguided. This country is something special. A whole lot of people want 'in'. I do not understand why we don't deliberately target the best and brightest to come here and build our country. It is not wrong from a policy perspective to only want the very best the world has to offer. We offer a lot; there is nothing wrong with maximizing our return.
So you just don't want asylum to be a thing.
A purely utilitarian immigration policy is not how many of us like to think of this country's moral dealings with other people. Also, we are pretty bad at identifying talent, broadly speaking.
Perhaps it's more accurate to say that we'd prefer asylum to be used for what it was originally meant for.
And not being used as an excuse for what is actually an economic migration.
That is facts not in evidence. No one has really offered evidence such claims are being allowed on a regular basis, you all just assume it.
Same as those who claim they only hate illegal immigration until someone presses and then they want to close the borders entirely.
There’s pretty clear evidence in that so many asylum seekers pass through safe countries to get to the US.
Even if they genuinely needed asylum when they got out of their home country, they didn’t by the time they reached the US border.
Congress has to do that…good luck!
That might be right if we were talking about immigration, but we're talking about asylum. Asylum isn't about what people can do for us.
But it's not right if we're talking about immigration, either. (The funny thing is, if someone suggested that American engineers and PhDs and such were better and more valuable citizens than American laborers and blue collar workers, there would be a massive backlash. But people routinely suggest that for immigrants. As if a bunch of politicians and Washington bureaucrats can decide what the country/economy needs.)
They aren't "better and more valuable citizens "
One can understand a shortage of a given skill set, and seek to find people who match that skill set.
We really need ag workers, turns out.
David, we don't see this the same way, or maybe we are not seeing the issue with the same lens. Yes, from a policy perspective, it is always about what people can do for this country (e.g. build it and make it better); it does not matter if it is H1B or asylum. I want the very best and brightest of the 8 billion people on the planet coming here - they are our future.
Ultimately, the problem is for Congress to resolve; immigration is a Congressional issue. I think we can agree about that.
In other words, God is full of shit and that crap at the Statue of Liberty is bullshit, too?
The Statue of Liberty's poem was written by a Jewish socialist. It was not a statement of policy, approved by Congress. In other words, it's irrelevant.
Given that we are not great at figuring out the future utility of individuals who want to come here, that seems like a bad sole metric to use.
Asylum is an act of mercy, borne out of the horrors of WWII, not a utilitarian calculation. I am sure the public asked what the value to the U.S. of the passengers on the St. Louis was.
But we also disagree about the "best and the brightest" from a pure utilitarian perspective. Again: I don't think the government is capable of determining what skills the country needs. I'd prefer to leave that to the market.
The "market" doesn't work when we have an extensive welfare state. The "market" might determine that a farmer needs tomato pickets, but will not take into account that this man will bring his wife and three children who will all need health care, food stamps, and education, including ESL.
We would have more American engineers and PhDs if THEY ALSO weren't being driven out of the market by cheaper foreign labor.
Ever try to find a young MD who speaks with an AMERICAN accent?
We have Americans who'd like to become MDs and who are qualified, but it's cheaper to bring in the foreigners.
Asylum brought us great advances, like Ilhan Omar. What's not to like?
Similarly, receiving asylum doesn't mean your claim is legit.
For example, the Tsarnaev family (the Boston bombers) got in on a bogus asylum claim. We know it's bogus because the parents fled back to Chechnya to avoid a shoplifting conviction.
They should certainly be allowed to work. ... in Mexico.
If it's really an economic boon, then Mexico will benefit and we can call it foreign aid. What's more lots of the asylum seekers will be able to speak the language. Perhaps they will choose to stay in Mexico.
We should normalize relations with Cuba and then build a natural gas pipeline to the island on the condition they hold democratic elections and return the property stolen from the exiles and take at least 2 million Spanish speaking asylum seekers.
I'd want to see an engineering study of the viability of that pipeline in a hurricane zone (I don't believe we have one going to Puerto Rico) -- but beyond that, Cuba is one of the countries that the illegal aliens are coming *from*.
Batista wasn't good, but Castro so screwed that island that only a MacArthur-type military government/occupation could ever make it a viable country again. Maybe we should invade Mexico and much of Central America -- sending hordes of invaders *is* an act of war, and they would be better off under an American dictatorship, paying a 25% tribute to the American treasury.
Maybe we should invade Mexico and much of Central America
they would be better off under an American dictatorship, paying a 25% tribute to the American treasury.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Too bad there's no opportunities for "Migrants" willing to work undocumented for below minimum wage, oh wait there is.
Let me propose this idea as a syllogism, let's see how this goes.
1. Everyone on the planet has the right to come to the US and claim asylum.
2. Everyone claiming asylum is allowed to live and work in the US.
3. Therefore, everyone on the planet is allowed to live and work in the US.
NO, we should NOT demand they work, Instead, we should make our 100+ million welfare recipients WORK for their welfare FIRST, and then if there are any unfilled jobs left (there won’t be) we can demand illegals work or be deported (they are NOT entitled to welfare).
Virtually ALL "asylum seekers" would (if they ever show up for their hearing, which they WON'T do) FAIL to qualify for asylum, Their requests are knowingly superficial claims just to get them into the US where they will disappear and never show up for their hearings because they know they won't qualify.
If xenophobic right-wingers do not develop arguments likely to be respected by, let alone persuasive among, the liberal-libertarian mainstream, their preferences with respect to immigration are destined to be as irrelevant as the gun nuts' and anti-abortion absolutists' position as America continues to progress against conservatives' wishes.
Come up with better arguments, Republicans, or be prepared to continue to lose arguments in which you won't even be relevant.
We outnumber you commies. You need to convince us to give up sovereignty to foreign invaders. And you can't.
No. Doing so would simply further break the already broken system.
Instead, the logical response is to quickly and rapidly process people's asylum claims as fast as possible.
Did you even bother to read the OP's arguments?
Sheesh!
Just rain money on every malcontent across the planet and make them stay home. "Asylum seekers." They are foreign invaders at worst, economic migrants at best.
As usual Somin the lawyer immigrant looks for ways to replace Americans with foreigners.
Replace doesn't mean what you think it means.
How so?
replace
re·place ri-ˈplās
transitive verb
1: to restore to a former place or position
replace cards in a file
2: to take the place of especially as a substitute or successor
3: to put something new in the place of
replace a worn carpet
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/replace
No one here is being kicked out so it's not replacement, even assuming your fearful supposition.
Somin specifically advocates replacing American jobs with foreign workers who are here on bogus asylum claims.
"replacing American jobs with foreign workers" doesn't even make sense - jobs are not workers; one cannot replace the other.
You are well afield from "replace Americans with foreigners." Americans are not being replaced.
He does no such thing. (For one thing, Somin isn't economically illiterate enough to believe in the lump of labor fallacy.)
Every Somin post favors the interests of foreigners, at the expense of Americans. He is not illiterate. Just anti-American.