OPINION: They Came Here Legally–Misconceptions About Asylum

By Anonymous

Asylum petitioners are individuals who seek protection in another country because they have fled their home due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Under international law, this persecution must be based on one or more protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership to a particular social group, or political opinion. These categories, enshrined in international conventions, ensure that those who face targeted harm are not returned to places where their lives or freedoms would be at risk.

The right to seek asylum is not a privilege, but a legal entitlement recognized by the global community. The cornerstones of modern refugee law, the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, establish that states must not return asylum seekers to territories where they face threats to life or freedom. This principle, known as non-refoulement, is one of the most fundamental guarantees under international law. It underscores that nations, regardless of political ideology, are bound to offer refuge to those escaping persecution. In essence, asylum is not an act of charity; it is a matter of compliance with human rights obligations.

In the United States, asylum seekers follow a legally defined pathway to request protection. The asylum process, while often misunderstood, is not a loophole or a form of illegal entry; it is a formal legal mechanism grounded in both domestic and international law. Under Section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any individual physically present in the U.S. or arriving at a port of entry has the right to apply for asylum, regardless of immigration status. This process is designed to balance humanitarian responsibility with national security, ensuring that only those with credible claims receive protection. However, the integrity of this system relies on procedural fairness. When an asylum claim reaches an immigration court, it is subject to a thorough evaluation by a judge. If the claim is denied, individuals are often issued a notice of voluntary departure, allowing them to leave the country on their own rather than being forcibly removed. This procedure not only respects human dignity but also reflects the United States’ broader commitment to due process and the rule of law. For decades, this balance has served as a testament to the nation’s democratic ideals, protecting the vulnerable while maintaining lawful order.

Yet, recent policy developments challenge  this foundational principle. As of 2025, the Trump administration has authorized immigration judges to “drop legally deficient asylum cases without a hearing”.  This policy shift is deeply troubling. It effectively removes the opportunity for certain asylum seekers to present their claims before a judge, denying them the right to be heard. In doing so, this policy questions both U.S. and international legal obligations.

Such a policy challenges the complexity of asylum law. Many applicants, often fleeing life-threatening situations, lack legal representation or familiarity with U.S. legal procedures. Determining a case “legally deficient” without a hearing risks dismissing legitimate claims from those who simply lack the resources or legal literacy to navigate an already convoluted system. Asylum law is intricate, requiring evidence, affidavits, and documentation that are often difficult to obtain from abroad, especially for those fleeing repressive regimes. By cutting off access to hearings, the system may deny certain individuals their only chance to prove the legitimacy of their persecution claims.

According to the National Immigration Forum, the average wait time for an asylum hearing is approximately 4.3 years. This backlog has been occurring due to a combination of factors such as an insufficient number of immigration judges, a large influx of new cases, and the complexity of processing individual cases, which results in significantly longer waiting times for individuals seeking their cases to be heard. During this period, asylum seekers live in a state of uncertainty, unable to predict the outcome of their cases. Yet, these years also demonstrate resilience and a deep commitment to legal compliance. Many asylum seekers obtain work authorization, pay taxes, pursue education, and contribute meaningfully to their communities while awaiting adjudication. They often fill labor shortages, support local economies, and enrich cultural diversity in the areas where they reside.

Despite this reality, a persistent and harmful misconception portrays asylum seekers as individuals “breaking the law.” In truth, seeking asylum is explicitly permitted under both U.S. and international law. Crossing a border to request asylum does not necessarily constitute unlawful entry; rather, it activates a person’s right to due process within the asylum framework. Dismissing or detaining individuals for exercising this right violates not only domestic statutes but also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Both documents prohibit arbitrary detention and affirm the right of individuals to seek refuge from persecution.

Detaining an asylum seeker who has not committed a crime contradicts these principles. Under Article 9 of both the UDHR and ICCPR, no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The detention of asylum seekers for prolonged or indefinite periods, especially without individualized justification, has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and human rights organizations worldwide. Such practices inflict psychological harm, erode trust in democratic institutions, and stigmatize those seeking asylum. Moreover, the treatment of asylum seekers is not merely a matter of policy—it is a reflection of national values. A country that prides itself on liberty and justice cannot, in good conscience, deny due process to those most in need of it. The asylum system functions as a moral barometer: it measures whether a nation truly upholds the ideals it professes. When the U.S. disregards due process for asylum seekers, it risks compromising its own democratic integrity.

To preserve these principles, reforms must emphasize fairness, efficiency, and humanity. This includes increasing funding for immigration courts to reduce backlogs, expanding access to legal counsel, and ensuring that every asylum seeker receives a full and impartial hearing. Rather than dismissing cases summarily, judges should be empowered to evaluate claims based on merit, guided by law. Upholding procedural rights does not threaten national security, it strengthens it, by demonstrating that justice in America is not selective.

As history shows, the United States has long been a refuge for those fleeing tyranny and violence, from political dissidents escaping authoritarian regimes to families displaced by war. The moral authority of the nation has always rested on its willingness to offer protection to the persecuted. Turning away from that legacy is profoundly problematic for the 

Ultimately, the asylum system embodies the intersection of legality and humanity. It tests not only the fairness of institutions but also the compassion of society. Every decision made in an immigration courtroom echoes beyond legal precedent.

In a country that upholds justice as a core principle, the treatment of asylum seekers must rise above political rhetoric and reflect the enduring values of due process, dignity, and equality under the law. Their cases are not mere files to be closed but stories of survival that call upon us to defend the very ideals that define a democracy. Protecting asylum seekers, therefore, is not simply an immigration issue, it is a moral and legal imperative, one that determines whether the United States remains true to its foundational promise: that all people, regardless of origin, deserve a fair chance to live free from fear.

Sources

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952).

National Immigration Forum. (2025). Asylum system delays and the need for reform. https://immigrationforum.org

National Public Radio (NPR). (2025). Trump administration allows judges to dismiss asylum cases without hearings. https://www.npr.org 

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

United Nations. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2010). Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.https://www.unhcr.org