Updated July 31: Public Comments Due by August 10

Please go here to comment on the proposed rule categorizing asylum seekers arriving from countries affected by COVID-19 as a security danger to the US.

Model Comment:

“I am opposing the Administration’s proposed rule that seeks to bar asylum seekers from entering the U.S. on public health grounds because it is an unjust, discriminatory measure that would exploit the current pandemic to eliminate crucial protections for asylum seekers in the future. This rule does not reflect my values or moral principles as a member of the faith community.

The Administration has been downplaying the severity of the virus for months to the American public, yet continues to use it as a means of implementing some of its cruelest changes in policy. This rule is baseless, unnecessary, and a failure of the U.S.’ commitment and obligations to protect asylum seekers for several reasons:

First, the bar to asylum is not simply a new bar, but is expanding the current bar on those who are considered to be a “danger to the security of the United States,” a definition that is typically applied to those engaged in terrorist activities.

Second, the UNHCR has previously stated that states are entitled to impose measures to protect public health, but that any such measures should be “blanket” measures universally applied. The proposed rule is not a blanket measure and the Administration is directly attacking asylum protections—a right afforded in both international and domestic law.

Third, public health experts in the U.S. have confirmed that the Administration can continue to provide protections to vulnerable populations and safeguard the health of Americans – one does not preclude the other.

The proposed rule is but the latest in Administration’s persistent chipping away at protections for vulnerable populations, undoing our asylum system, and undermining our claim as a proponent and protector of human rights. I am saddened by the continuous attacks on asylum seekers and believe that the U.S. should focus its efforts on creating a system that can serve as an example to the international community that not only upholds its obligations but serves to help those in need.”

______________________

A newly proposed rule published on July 9, 2020 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) would categorize asylum seekers arriving at the border from a country affected by the coronavirus as a “danger to the security of the United States.” Under public health grounds, asylum seekers would be barred from claiming asylum or granted withholding of removal.

The rule proclaims to be a preventative measure to stop the spread of the coronavirus — and other future pandemics — into the U.S. despite the country already becoming the epicenter of the virus with more than 3 million confirmed cases. Expanding the definition of a danger to the security to the U.S. to bar asylum seekers on public health grounds would be both a violation of international law and unnecessary because the Trump Administration has already implemented policies at the border that prohibit the entry of asylum seekers — also a violation of international law.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “States are entitled to take measures to ascertain and manage risks to public health,” but “imposing a blanket measure to preclude the admission of refugees or asylum-seekers, or of those of a particular nationality or nationalities, without evidence of a health risk and without measures to protect against refoulement, would be discriminatory and would not meet international standards.” The proposed rule is not proposing a non-discriminatory action but directly attacking asylum.

In March, DHS released an emergency measure that would limit non-essential travel at the border while a policy released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) authorized the administration to bypass its legal and moral obligations and deport all those arriving at the border. This is the latest crushing blow to protections for asylum seekers as DOJ and DHS announced less than a month ago a proposed rule that would completely dismantle protections for asylum seekers.

The rule contends that the threat of spreading the virus would be from Mexican and non-Mexican nationals seeking to enter the U.S. at or between a port of entry. The rule refers to the CDC policy stating that the spread of the virus in “asylum camps and shelters along the U.S. border is inevitable.” However, the large number of asylum seekers stranded at the border who have little access to necessities such as food, water, shelter, and medical assistance and are vulnerable to the spread of the virus is a product of one of the administration’s other anti-asylum policies, the Migrant Protection Protocols. Three cases have already been reported in a migrant camp along the border in Matamoros, Mexico.

The Trump Administration can commit to mitigating the spread of the coronavirus and maintaining the security of the U.S. without circumventing its obligations to protecting vulnerable populations. Public health experts previously criticized the CDC policy stating, “There is no public health rationale for denying admission to individuals based on legal status,” and should focus on  “rational, evidence-based public health measures to safeguard both the health of the public and the lives of adults, families, and unaccompanied children seeking asylum and other protection.”