An Open-Door Policy 

The open door policy could entail a blanket acceptance of any asylum seeker crossing the southern border. It would include many citizens who are not from Haiti but are transiting through Mexico. Alternatively, the policy could entail accepting asylum seekers only from certain countries or the implementation of a cap on the number of admitted asylum seekers to let in. This approach would obviously require a decision about which countries to include or what the cap should be. Currently, President Biden set the cap to allow 125000 refugees into the U.S. in the fiscal year 2021-2022.

Though an open-door policy would provide the greatest humanitarian protection to those arriving at the border, it carries several risks:

• This option could encourage a continued exodus from the Caribbean, Central, and South American countries, including by migrants who are not necessarily fleeing violence but are seeking better economic opportunity.
• An open door could create a domestic political backlash that could be exploited by those who favor anti-immigration policies.
• Absorbing or integrating individuals into the United States could strain social safety nets and create competition for jobs.
• Admitting large numbers of asylum seekers could pose a security risk by straining the existing capacity to screen migrants to identify potential security threats to the country.
• The lack of infrastructure and capacity for processing the migrants will lead to makeshift camps and bad living conditions.

 

Asylum Reform 

The years-long backlog in the asylum system puts pressure on both the U.S. government, which is trying to process claims as quickly as possible and on asylum seekers, who live with uncertainty while their cases are processed. The government could commit resources to hire additional immigration judges in order to work through the backlog quickly. The government could also provide counsel to some or all asylum seekers (unlike in criminal court, immigration court has no right to counsel), a move that could both speed the system and better protect asylum seekers’ rights. To reduce the number of cases adding to the backlog, the government could also allow immigration agencies greater leeway to decide asylum cases without referring them to courts. Finally, the US could consider reforming the detention system—especially the detention of minors. All of these options are expensive.

Asylum reform would help to clear the current backlog of asylum claims in the United States more quickly. However, this option has potential drawbacks:

• This plan demands a higher investment of resources, as it would involve hiring or contracting with additional judges and/or attorneys and training officials to process claims more efficiently to reduce the asylum backlog. The process of hiring and training new immigration judges is likely to belong and expensive; even small-scale additions of judges and staff for a fiscal year have cost over $40 million.
• Providing access to counsel makes asylum seekers more likely to succeed in their claims, which in turn could provoke a domestic political backlash.
• This plan would potentially reduce the backlog but would not address the root causes of displacement from Central America.

Enlisting Mexican and Regional Support to Stop the Flow 

As long as the United States permits asylum seekers to enter the United States and file their claims, their numbers are likely to grow. That is because the asylum determination process is a lengthy one, and many asylum seekers live for two or more years in the United States before their cases can be resolved. In addition, many who are rejected for asylum do not return home but remain in the United States without authorization. The United States could enlist Mexico as a barrier to most asylum seekers, requiring Central Americans and others arriving in Mexico to request asylum in that country instead, or reinstitute the Remain in Mexico policy, forcing Central Americans to remain in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated in the United States. Guatemala could similarly be enlisted to block asylum seekers transiting from Honduras and El Salvador. This policy would likely reduce the flow sharply but entails several risks:

• Enlisting regional support could open the United States to charges that it is violating both its international commitments (the 1967 protocol and the principle of non-refoulment) and domestic law (the Refugee Act of 1980).
• Forcing asylum seekers to remain in countries such as Guatemala and Mexico could keep them in danger, as some of the towns where migrants wait are known for trafficking, smuggling, and extraction.
• Migrants could be pushed to attempt unauthorized entry to the United States, taking on the added costs and risks of that path. This, in turn, would stimulate human smuggling/trafficking.
• This plan could draw Mexican opposition—we would need to consider what incentives they could offer to convince Mexico to cooperate in such an arrangement.

 

Regional Aid and Refugee Processing  

The US and allies could address the root causes of migration by providing support to Haiti. This approach would involve a large increase in U.S. foreign aid—and  increased support through police, military, and legal advisors—to try to bring about greater security, stronger rule of law, and relief from extreme poverty and the harmful effects of climate change. For those still seeking asylum, the United States could work with stable neighboring countries such as Costa Rica and with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, to set up refugee camps and processing facilities closer to Haiti. The United States could support efforts to process  refugees closer to home by committing to accept a significant number of these processed refugees.

This policy would reduce the incentive for Haitians to attempt the long and dangerous journey across Mexico to reach the United States. However, it also has disadvantages that members need to consider:

• This plan has the greatest amount of uncertainty. Especially given high levels of corruption among the Haiti government, U.S. money and support would not necessarily bring greater stability to the region.
• The success, of regional aid, if it comes, is likely to take many years. Seeing the effects of such aid on the U.S.-Mexico border could take an even longer period of time.
• This policy demands a high investment of resources that will be concentrated outside the United States.

 

Maintain Current Asylum Policies 

The US could decide that the risks and costs of adopting new asylum policies outweigh the benefits, and opt to maintain existing asylum policies. This approach would require no additional commitment of U.S. resources and would not entail the risks of the other policy options. However, this option would have several drawbacks:

• Maintaining current policies would do nothing to address the large inflow of asylum seekers currently bound for the U.S. border, leading to a further increase in the already immense backlog of asylum claims in the United States.
• This plan would drive migrants unwilling to wait for an asylum determination to attempt unauthorized crossings.
• It could draw domestic and international criticism for doing nothing to address worsening humanitarian conditions among those attempting to seek asylum in the United States.