Crossing the Line

(idiomatic) To overstep a boundary, rule, or limit; to go too far; to do something unacceptable

There are many meanings wrapped up inside the title of my forthcoming book: Crossing the Line: Finding America in the Borderlands. One of them was evoked in a US federal court on July 25th, when Judge Jon S. Tigar blocked the Biden administration’s “Circumvention of Lawful Pathways” policy.

As I wrote on May 10th, though dressed up with a fancy new name, Biden’s rule functions just as Trump & Co’s anti-immigration czar Stephen Miller’s did: by limiting how people fleeing persecution may seek protection in the US, which Judge Tigar’s ruling confirms is illegal under US and international law. 

Ergo: Biden’s attack on asylum, like Trump’s, crossed the line.

For context: The 1980 Refugee Act established that anyone physically present in the US or its territorial holdings may apply for asylum, no matter how they arrived; no matter what countries they passed through on the way; and no matter whether they entered at a designated port of entry, between ports of entry, by plane or by sea, on foot or in the arms of parents. The law states that once on US soil, anyone has the legal right to proclaim a need for safety and can expect protection from expulsion as long as immigration courts are considering that claim.

The Refugee Act of 1980 also gives authority to the US attorney general to designate, through bi- or multi-national agreement, “safe third countries” where folks fleeing persecution, yet unable to reach the US, may remain under protection until refugee status is conferred. These “safe third countries,” by definition, must boast a robust and accessible — aka, “full and fair” — asylum system. And following the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol, they must be places where people will enjoy freedom from fear of harm. 

The original spirit of the “safe third country” provision was to encourage nation-state responsibility sharing with regard to supporting the needs of people in motion. But Miller kneaded the ideal into political playdough by getting AG Bill Barr to broker deals designating Central American pass-through countries, which have topped the charts in annual homocide rates for decades, as “safe.”

That done, Miller was ready to implement an arsenal of policies intended to prevent asylum seekers from stepping foot onto US soil, where national and international obligations toward them would kick automatically into gear. In other words, he wrote rules and regulations that make an end-run around the 1980 Refugee Act and Refugee Convention.

In this, Miller wasn’t alone: Reagan and Bush Sr taught the world how to circumvent internationally recognized legal pathways to asylum by “externalizing” the process. Ordering the US Coast Guard to interdict forcibly displaced Haitians at sea, then detaining them en masse at Guantánamo Bay, these administrations pushed safety seekers away from US territory, cutting off their access to due process under US and international law. They crossed the line. Tragically, such lawlessness gave first Oz then Fortress Europe permission to do the same.

Everyone knows that Mexico is not safe. And while it does have a refugee agency tasked with processing asylum applications, the Comision para Ayuda à Refugiados is under-resourced and not accessible. It is not “full and fair.”

Guatemala is not safe. Neither is Honduras, nor El Salvador. They are among the most dangerous countries in the world, largely due to US foreign-policy interventions going back decades. Because of US economic priorities, moreover, these countries are also notoriously poor, compelling thousands of their own citizens to emigrate each year. If they have asylum systems, they are rudimentary at best. And where transnational criminal organizations rule, there is no border in the region that someone facing persecution can pass into and feel free from potential persecution. Gangs and cartels know no borders.

Just as the Trump-era asylum ban was deemed illegal, so too has Biden’s ban crossed the line. It is cruel. It is ineffective. And it violates both US and international law.

Why is this so important?

Because there are more people on the move in the world today than ever before, and that trend is only going up. Yet the world’s wealthiest nations continue to deny their responsibility for the root causes of forced migration. Their denial is expressed in their obsession to deter, meaning that year after year more people’s lives are destroyed as the US, UK, EU, OZ, Israel, and South Africa apply ever more cruel, more costly, and more criminal methods to stop people, rather than asking:

Why are so many on the run?

That is the question that animates my forthcoming book, Crossing the Line: Finding America in the Borderlands, which I had the opportunity to introduce to a New York audience in July.

Please enjoy and share the following 12-minute reading from Chapter Six: An Epiphany of Epiphanies.

Before you go, I’d love to hear your thoughts! And not just about the reading. But about how the world’s richest nations might come together to tackle the root causes of forced migration, rather than driving us toward mass crimes against humanity — or worse. 

Please leave me a comment below!

Wishing you a restful and rejuvenating rest of the summer.
Keep cool,
XO Sarah