Donald Trump, the president-elect, can reverse the new explosive rise in international asylum applications without the assistance of Congress.
Over the past 20 years, the number of foreigners seeking hospital in the US has increased by more than one-tenth of a percentage, just like the number of European countries.
The number of applicants for both has increased dramatically from a lone fraction of the amount of non-asylum-seeking illegal immigrants, rising from a lone variety in the US to far greater than the latter number in Europe.
2. 6 million immigrants were reportedly seeking hospital in the US in 2023. The majority of them were officially existing in the US without the ability to work, but many are regarded as having engaged in illegal employment.
The 2.6 million immigrants who are already granted asylum and who have the constitutional right to work are not included in those 2.6 million. Additionally, those 2.6 million foreigners do not include past asylum seekers who were deported after remaining in the country, many of whom are alleged to be working improperly.
Asylum business advanced
Emigration lawyers and human rights activists ‘ active roles in NGOs and the federal government have contributed to this explosive growth in hospital programs.
An ever-growing number of foreigners who otherwise might not have been able to enter the US ( or Europe ) legally have been given the status of legally admitted asylum seekers thanks to the asylum industry in recent decades.  ,
The professional branch’s plan administrators and asylum application adjudicators have largely contributed to the asylum industry’s efforts by influencing the definition of “persecution” to be read much wider than it was in the past.
Still-in-force provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( INA ) of 1952, codified in part at 8 U. S. C. 1101 ( a ) ( 42 ), make “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” a prerequisite of entitlement to refugee status and hence to asylum in the US.
Prior to the “persecution” of forty or more years ago, it was primarily understood as being limited to actions by or supported by a state, a religious organization, or some other organized party, such as the mass killings of Peruvian farmers by death teams affiliated with major political parties, or the widespread mass murders of Catholics by Muslims in predominantly Muslim areas of Nigeria.
The hospital industry has expanded the definition of “persecution” over the past 30 years, including discrimination against a minor for being beaten by his dad as a result of their queer behavior or for being denied access to gender-changing drugs or surgery.
An immigration lawyer can then quickly come up with a plausible asylum claim for almost any African or Muslim because almost all American and Muslim societies disapprove of both homosexual behavior and gender-changing.
In addition, this is just one of some parameters expanding the definition of what constitutes “persecution” in terms of hospital law.
A quick look at the” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” that the US Department of State has published annually over the past four decades —e. g., in 1983, 1993, 2003, 2013 and 2023—can give a sense of how far what is deemed to form “persecution” has expanded in recent years.
In programs for asylum in the US, those reports have grown exponentially, covering a wider range of activities that can be interpreted as “persecution” with each passing ten. They are frequently cited as credible information in these reports.
Reversing the stream
It almost makes no sense to lessen the flow of illegal immigrants without even reducing the flow of asylum seekers. This may increase the number of people who are not already residing as asylum seekers.  ,
Without immigrant visas or permanent resident status, it wo n’t reduce the flow of foreigners entering and remaining in the US. Even so, it wo n’t even help to halt that inflow’s growth.
By issuing an executive order directing all US senior tree officials, including boundary enforcement officials, ICE’s asylum application adjudicators, and the DOJ’s immigration court judges, to use or interpret the term “persecution” in relation to refugees and asylum cases, it is much more widely used and interpreted and used in 1952. Luckily, President-elect Trump can significantly reduce the number of plausible asylum claims.
That year marks the INA’s passage year for the INA provision that uses that term to determine refugee status eligibility, a requirement for asylum.
The only legal growth of the range of the term “persecution” in that context, enacted in 1996, requires that the INA’s use of “persecution” been construed as including “persecution for resistance to aggressive population control methods”, especially forced sterilization and forced abortion.  ,
But, since such people control methods are no longer practiced somewhere, that growth of the reach of “persecution” has no existing software. This might be taken into account in the professional attempt I suggest.
In a memo re-narrowing the executive branch’s use and definition of “persecution” in relation to refugees and asylum cases, it might also be wise to direct all executive branch officials to use or interpret the term “internationally recognized human rights” to include only those rights that are ( 1 ) defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, in favor of which the US voted in 1948, or ( 2 ) that are protected by international agreements to which the US is party.
The State Department’s” Country Reports on Human Rights Practices” are frequently referenced in hospital programs in the US because it defines the scope of its “internationally recognized human privileges” as a guideline for the use of that word.
By removing the US from the UN Refugee Agency’s 1967 Protocol Pertain to the Status of Refugees, an international agreement, it can be made more justifiable in US authorities. The US is the only international arrangement that deals with asylum to which the US is a signatory.
The UN’s Global Compact on Refugees ( GCR ), adopted by the UN General Assembly ( UNGA ) in 2018, despite the US vote against it, is not an international agreement. Like all other UNGA activities, it is not conditional on UN member states, it is only hortatory.
The US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Corresponding to the Status of Refugees, in comparison. The US has always been a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, which only applies to refugees fleeing oppression that started before 1951.
In 1968, the US became group to the 1951 meeting’s 1967 method, which expanded the 1951 meeting’s scope to include migrants from harassment committed since 1951 and in the prospect.
Migrant removal
Withdrawal from the US’s 1967 protocol would remove: ( 1 ) grounds on which various foreign entities could otherwise file a lawsuit seeking status in US courts challenging an executive order that narrows down executive branch employees ‘ definitions of “persecution” in refugee and asylum cases; and ( 2 ) grounds for legal arguments in US courts that a re-narrowed definition of “persecution” is incompatible with US obligations under the 1967 protocol.
Any state party to the 1967 protocol may, under Article 9 of that protocol, withdraw from it at any time ( i .e., by notifying the Secretary-General of the UN) and that its denunciation will take effect a year later.
The US senator has long been deemed by the US court to have full authority, implied by Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution, to remove the US from any treaty or foreign agreement. With this authority, President Trump announced his 2020 withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty.
No limits on presidential authority to withdraw from the 1967 refugee protocol appear to have been enacted, despite the possibility that enacted legislation may limit presidential authority to do so.
To reduce the number of asylum applications, by removing an incentive to file them, by allowing people who are asylum seekers or who declare at the border that they want to seek asylum in the US and who could seek asylum in Mexico or Canada.  ,
However, that has already been widely publicized and seems well-known to President-elect Trump and his advisors.  , Moreover, that alone will not suffice to reverse the recent rise in asylum applications.
Ichabod, a pseudonym, is a former US diplomat.