Recent statements at the U.N. General Assembly signal a shift in U.S. refugee and asylum policy. USCRI examines what these changes mean for America’s humanitarian commitments.
Last month, on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly, officials from the U.S. State Department led a discussion on the global refugee and asylum system. The Administration’s emerging approach undermines decades of bipartisan commitment to protecting refugees and upholding international law. Reassessing refugee protection could be constructive, but any reforms must strengthen—not weaken—safeguards for those fleeing persecution.
The discussion was opened by Spencer Chretien, Senior Bureau Official of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and hosted by Christopher Landau, Deputy Secretary of State. During the panel, Landau articulated principles intended to define the Administration’s new approach:
- Sovereignty: “We get to decide who comes in and under what circumstances and for how long.”
- First country of asylum policy: “There is no right to immigrate or to receive asylum or refugee status in the country of an individual’s choice.”
- Extreme narrowing of asylum eligibility: “Economic privation is not a basis for asylum.”
- Formalizing “temporary” asylum status: “Refugee status is temporary,” and this will prevent people “from abusing the system.”
- Returns: “Every country … must agree to accept expeditiously the return of its nations.”
These principles mark a significant shift in how the United States interprets and applies longstanding refugee and asylum commitments. Earlier in the week, UNGA high-level representatives were told that migration is “destroying your country,” and that “countries are being ruined” by “uncontrolled migration.” For his part, Landau asserted that asylum and refugee protection are being used to bypass legal immigration pathways, acting as a “substitute” for immigration and fueling mass migration to the United States. Landau also stated, without presenting any supporting evidence, that there is wide abuse of the system.
Let’s be clear: Upholding refugee rights does not lead to uncontrolled migration. The right to seek asylum or refugee status is a fundamental human right. Protections for refugees and asylum seekers have been endorsed and expanded by international treaties and national laws for decades.
Consider the historical record of refugee and migrant protection:
- Human mobility is constant and driven by war, persecution, climate impacts on livelihoods, or the pursuit of opportunity and safety. International cooperation on the protection and resettlement of refugees and displaced persons has occurred for centuries.
- Intergovernmental organizations coordinating global responses to large-scale displacement such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) and its predecessor the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), have existed for over 80 years.
- The Refugee Convention, an international treaty protecting the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, has been in force since 1951. A protocol reaffirming and expanding those rights has been in force since 1967. Countries that haven’t signed or ratified these instruments are still bound by universal human rights norms, including the principle of non-refoulement, or returning someone to a country where their life is in danger.
- The U.S. refugee program, established by the Refugee Act of 1980 and passed unanimously by Congress, has provided a framework for admitting and resettling refugees ever since. The program reflects a longstanding U.S. commitment to providing refuge to those fleeing persecution and danger.
Seeking Asylum is Not a Loophole
During the panel, Landau claimed that asylum is a loophole in U.S. immigration laws, asserting that “90-plus percent of people are found not to be eligible for asylum”. This is not true. While the latest U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) report shows that around 10 percent of affirmative asylum applications were granted between October to December 2024, a 10 percent grant rate does not mean that 90 percent of applications were fraudulent. Around 80 percent of asylum applications were administratively closed or dismissed before adjudication. Reasons for closure could include withdrawal of the application by the applicant, death of the applicant, change in immigration status, involuntary transfer to immigration court, failure to appear at scheduled interviews or hearings, or incomplete documentation. There are many reasons that cases are closed. What is clear is that Landau’s framing was misleading and did not seem to reference grant rates in defensive asylum cases, which has fluctuated between 25 and 49 percent during the past ten years.
Asylum grant rates are also strongly correlated with legal representation. However, having an attorney is not a right in immigration court, despite what’s at stake. Asylum seekers, if deported back to their country, may face years-long detention, torture, or even death. Retaining an attorney can be difficult because the process can take years, due to backlogs at USCIS and immigration courts. Children and infants are also not guaranteed an attorney, despite efforts to do so both in Congress and from non-governmental organizations. If not for governmental programs, which are at grave risk, many more children would be forced to file applications, prepare evidence, and argue for themselves in immigration court.
Some claims overlook that asylum outcomes are highly sensitive to political changes. The Executive Branch has significant discretion in implementing asylum policy and can issue guidance affecting eligibility and adjudication without formal rulemaking, though fundamental changes to the law or regulations still require proper procedural steps. For example, the Executive Branch recently imposed higher barriers for survivors of domestic violence to be granted asylum. Nationality, age, and gender can significantly impact asylum claims—a topic that has been the subject of extensive academic research. Additionally, the Executive Branch controls interviews, staffing, access to lawyers, and the cost of applying.
In short, the Government has significant control over who is granted asylum. Grant and denial rates should be viewed as an outcome of policy decisions, rather than a judgment about who is truly in need of asylum protection.
Finally, individuals seeking a loophole in the U.S. immigration system would not choose to exploit the arduous asylum process. Applying for asylum is a marathon process that re-traumatizes applicants, their families, and everyone involved in the process. People who apply for asylum are also forced to gamble for their future, since the final decision usually rests on a single asylum officer or immigration judge.
The United States has already started to implement policies that has resulted in decreased refugee admissions and significantly impaired access to asylum. The United States’s stance may embolden more countries to adopt restrictive refugee and asylum policies. This month, the European countries are clashing over new asylum policies due to many countries’ reluctance to welcome more refugees. Furthermore, the current Administration has already recruited nations to participate in its third-country deportation scheme, despite human rights concerns over refoulement.
On a global scale, the proposed reinvention of the refugee and asylum system is particularly harmful considering the present reality. At a time of unprecedented levels of displacement, countries should be working together to upscale solutions. Tearing down the system risks more instability and increased displacement—all at the cost of people who are fleeing death, torture, and harm.
Background
USCRI joined Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) in urging the Administration to uphold refugee protections, and separately
joined over 260 faith-based, non-governmental, and other civil society organizations calling on UN Member States to uphold international refugee treaties. Also, 117 refugee-led organizations from 41 countries urged UN Member States to reaffirm commitments to refugee protections.
In a following speech, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi urged countries to recommit to multilateralism. While assuring countries that UNHCR appreciates challenges posed by population flows, Grandi clearly stated that the problem is not one of principles codified in the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol: “In an environment where everything is highly politicized, putting the Refugee Convention and the principle of asylum on the table would be a catastrophic error. It would lead us down blind alleys and, ultimately, it would make the problem more difficult to address. Beware, please, the easy fix!”
For more, see other relevant USCRI publications here:
The Refugee Act of 1980: Needed Now More Than Ever
Defining “Refugees”—An Exclusionary Legacy
Shifts in Gender-Related Refugee Protection Eligibility Guidelines
Fairness for Women in Gender-Related Refugee Cases
Our response to today’s refugees betrays the lessons of the Vietnam War (external link)
