by Sara Kleinman
Introduction
At the United States border today, people seeking asylum face extreme violations to human rights as they are forced into overcrowded detainment centers to endure the complicated asylum process and await their hearings. However, other countries such as Germany, allow much simpler processes without enforcing inhumane conditions on asylum seekers. This paper seeks to explore why the conditions at some countries’ borders are so much worse than other countries’ borders. Research reveals a correlation between countries ratifying the 1951 Refugee Convention and more humane conditions for asylum seekers at borders today. This paper will utilize the United States and Germany as case studies to analyze immigration sentiments across history and the implications of positive and negative immigration politics today. I will argue that countries’ histories of pro-immigration sentiments, specifically in the World War II period and subsequently, reflect decisions to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention and culminate in better treatment of asylum seekers at borders today.
Immigration Policies in the United States Today and the Inhumane Treatment of Asylum Seekers at the United States Border
The current process of seeking asylum in the United States is incredibly long and arduous. Those seeking asylum must apply through either the affirmative asylum process or the defensive asylum process. Affirmative asylum involves applications with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) while defensive asylum involves applications with immigration judges of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in order to prevent removal from the United States. Upon entering the U.S. to file for asylum, most people are immediately removed from the country under the expedited removal procedure and forced to return to the countries of origin they sought escape from. If they fall under credible or reasonable fear scenarios, their case will be heard. However, the asylum process can take an average of 6 months to several years to complete and the U.S. government argues that it has the right to detain asylum seekers during that time (“Asylum in the United States”).
The Trump administration has created policies that make the asylum process even more inaccessible. For example, “metering” refers to the practice of asylum seekers at the U.S. border being turned away and instructed to wait in Mexico until capacity frees up for entry points to process them. It is a method of “asylum turnback” and essentially prevents people from accessing the asylum process (“Asylum in the United States”). These policies enacted under the Trump administration further exacerbate the inhumane nature of the United States asylum process.
The difficulties of the process of applying and being granted asylum are evident in how few people the United States settles today compared to other countries. Despite a general increasing trend in the number of refugees worldwide, data from the American Immigration Council reveals that “in 2017, for the first time in modern history, the United States settled fewer refugees than the rest of the world” (“An Overview of U.S. Refugee Law and Policy”). Additionally, Ben Johnson, the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Executive Director, refers to Trump’s refugee admission limit of 15,000 as at a level “that fails our moral and ethical commitment to do our part to alleviate suffering” (AILA). Evidently, the extremely complicated asylum process prevents people from successfully seeking asylum and being able to settle in the United States.
Since relatively few asylum seekers are actually granted asylum, the detention centers have become overcrowded and conditions are reported to be inhumane. BBC News reported that in a detention center in Rio Grande, Texas, a cell designed to hold 40 men was holding 51 females and another cell designed to hold 41 women was holding 71 males. Inspectors with the U.S. Office of the Inspector General concluded that they were “concerned that overcrowding and prolonged detention represent an immediate risk to the health and safety of [Department of Homeland Security] agents and officers, and to those detained” (“US migrant centres: Photos show ‘dangerous’ overcrowding”). Specifically, some of the children in this detainment center did not have access to showers, hot meals, or clean clothes. Other detention centers were kept at extremely cold temperatures or with the lights on 24 hours a day. When members of Congress visited a patrol center in Texas, detained women explained that they were instructed to drink out of the toilet bowls because of the lack of running water. Such unsanitary conditions contribute to illnesses spreading quickly. In a span of one year, 700 people caught mumps in detention centers. Three children also died from the flu after not being allowed to receive vaccines (“Conditions in Migrant Detention Centers”). The Medical Payment Authorization Request is ICE’s system for providing medical care to detainees. However, it relies on “professional judgement” and has no specific guidelines for deciding if external medical care is necessary (“Conditions in Migrant Detention Centers”). Discernibly, the United States’ flawed detainment system creates dangerous and inhumane conditions for asylum seekers.
Current Immigration Policies and Practices in Germany
Contrary to the process of seeking asylum in the United States, applying for asylum in Germany is much simpler. Upon arriving in the country, all people seeking asylum are immediately registered. They are then placed in reception facilities, where quotas are utilized under the Initial Distribution of Asylum-Seekers (EASY) plan to ensure fair distribution of asylum seekers and prevent overcrowding in facilities. Asylum seekers may submit asylum applications and are given personal interviews before the Federal Office makes its decision (“The Stages of the Asylum Procedure”).
This simplified asylum application process is reflected in the decreasing numbers of asylum seekers that are held in detainment. Although Germany has the highest amounts of asylum applications in the EU with 126,995 applications in 2012 and only increasing amounts since, relatively few of them are held in detainment and numbers are only decreasing (Majcher and Flynn). Germany detained only 4,812 asylum seekers in 2013 compared to 5,748 in 2012, 6,466 in 2011, 7,495 in 2010, 8,366 in 2009, and 8,805 in 2008 (Majcher and Flynn).
Additionally, the treatment of the asylum seekers that are held in detainment camps is much more humane than how asylum seekers are treated in the United States. Detainment centers in Germany are referred to as “responsible reception facilities.” Under the Asylum-Seekers’ Benefits Act in Germany, asylum seekers in detention centers are given benefits such as food, housing, heating, clothing, healthcare, and personal hygiene. They are given a monthly amount of money that can be used for proper treatments of sickness, pregnancy, birth, any other individual matters, or even as “pocket” money (“The Stages of the Asylum Procedure”). After six months, asylum seekers are no longer obligated to live in the reception centers; they may integrate into the community for the remainder of the asylum-seeking process (“Asylum Seeking Process”).
History of Immigration Sentiment in the United States
The inhumane treatment of asylum seekers at the United States border today reflects the U.S.’ history of anti-immigration policies in the World War II era and continuing in present times. Before and during the war, immigration was limited. In 1924, the United States imposed quotas on the number of people per country that could immigrate. The total number of immigrants to the U.S. was limited to about 164,000 per year, with 85.6% of immigrants from Northern and Western Europe, 12.4% from Southern and Eastern Europe, and 1.8% from Asia, Africa, and the Pacific Islands. In 1933, 82,787 Germans applied for asylum in the United States, yet the quota only allowed 1,241 to receive visas and in 1940, 301,935 Germans applied and only 27,355 received visas (“How Many Refugees Came to the United States from 1933-1945?”). Quotas also prevented the immigration of people from China to the United States. Despite that the Chinese Exclusion Act, which severely limited the number of immigrants entering from China, was repealed in 1943, quotas ensured that Asian immigration remained very low for decades (Immigrants and Refugees).
Following World War II, immigration policies in the United States remained extremely strict. These policies prevented U.S. soldiers who served overseas in the war, got married, and had children from being able to bring their families with them back to the United States after the war was over. Although the War Brides Act, officially known as the Alien Spouses of Members of the Armed Forces Act, was passed in 1945, it was only applicable to the families of white and black soldiers (Immigrants and Refugees).
During the Cold War, anti-immigration attitudes continued to deepen in the United States. Throughout the 1950s, nationalism rose and American ideology involved capitalism, democracy, and preventing the spread of communism. Anti-Asian sentiments grew rapidly as the United States feared Communist China. The U.S. House of Representatives Archives Center explains that “the FBI considered Chinese immigrants a major security threat primarily because it feared they were using forged immigration documents purchased on the black market in Communist China” (Immigrants and Refugees). The United States’ anti-immigration sentiment is inherently evident in the use of quotas during the Cold War era.
Under President Eisenhower’s administration, anti-Mexican immigration sentiment also grew. Public pressure erupted to act in response to the estimated three million undocumented Mexicans in the United States. Eisenhower ordered “Operation Wetback,” which involved the Immigration and Naturalization Service conducting a national “sweep” of undocumented immigrations (U.S. Postwar Immigration Policy).
In recent history, the anti-immigration sentiment in the United States has become even more extreme. President Clinton’s administration introduced “Operation Gatekeeper” and doubled the number of authorized Border Patrol agents (U.S. Postwar Immigration Policy). President Bush’s administration created the Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks, which emphasizes the U.S. priority of national security. It enhances security and allows for easier detainment and deportment of immigrants that are deemed threats of terrorism (U.S. Postwar Immigration Policy). Additionally, President Trump exhibited extreme anti-immigration notions. Only a week after entering office, President Trump suspended the refugee program for 120 days, banned Syrian refugees, decreased the cap on asylum admissions, and banned people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from even travelling to the United States for ninety days (U.S. Postwar Immigration Policy). Throughout United States history, the anti-immigration sentiment is evident.
History of Immigration Sentiment in Germany
Germany exhibited a very different history of immigration politics than the United States. As chaos erupted during the World War II era, large-scale emigration from Germany occurred. However, post-war pro-immigration sentiments reflected Germany’s need for immigrants to repair its destroyed economy, as well as Germany’s guilt about the Holocaust, desires to reconcile, and implementation of a new culture of welcoming people.
As the Cold War began in the 1950s, an economic crisis resulted in a labor shortage in Germany. In response, Germany created agreements with many countries including Italy in 1955, Spain in 1960, Greece in 1960, Turkey in 1961, Portugal in 1964, and Yugoslavia in 1968 to support a “guest worker” program where people immigrated and worked industrial jobs in the German market (Oezcan). As Germany worked to repair its economy, immigration began to grow throughout the country.
After the Holocaust, Germany battled post-war guilt and desired reconciliation for the damage it caused. It introduced willkommenskultur, which refers to “welcome culture.” The German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees defines “welcome culture” as “new migrants welcomed with an appealing framework and thus recognized in society” (Trauner and Turton). The term was originally utilized to attract immigrants to come work in Germany and is now also being used to make refugees in Germany feel at home. Susanne Dieper, Direction of Programs and Grants at Johns Hopkins University’s American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, explains that “welcome culture” is seen in that “Germans have become generally more open-minded vis-à-vis immigrants, their culture and traditions, at the same time demonstrating respect and acknowledging the contributions immigrants make to German society” (Dieper).
Today, German politics reflect pro-immigrant values. In 2001, the Social Democrat and Green coalition created an immigration policy that welcomed people planning to establish businesses in Germany, with no cap on the amount of people allowed (Oezcan). In 2013, Germany created a program that covered the cost of travel, language courses, living costs, and vocational training for young, unemployed Europeans over the age of 18 to immigrate to Germany. Today, “welcome culture” remains a common aspect of public discourse and reflects pro-immigrant German attitudes.
The 1951 Refugee Convention
The culmination of anti-immigration sentiment in the United States contrasted with pro-immigration sentiment in Germany is reflected in the U.S. withholding from the 1951 Refugee Convention and Germany ratifying it. The 1951 Refugee Convention is a crucial international document that is regulated by the United Nations High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR). It was established in 1950 to define and give rights to the millions of people who were displaced in World War II. It outlines obligations of states to protect displaced persons. The central idea of the Convention is non-refoulement, which contends that refugees cannot be returned to states where their rights to life or freedom are in danger. Although the United States did ratify the 1967 Protocol which outlines specific procedures for enacting the Convention, it did not ratify the original 1951 Convention which Germany did (The 1951 Refugee Convention). It is important to note this correlation between histories of immigration sentiment and ratification of the Convention in order to provide further rationale of the connection to the treatment of asylum seekers at borders today.
Alternative Explanations for Differing Treatment of Asylum Seekers in U.S. and Germany
Although an undeniable link exists between countries that have positive immigration sentiments, ratification of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and more humane treatment of asylum seekers today, alternative explanations may also contribute to the differences in the treatment of immigrants. One explanation for better treatment of asylum seekers at German borders is a lower birth rate. While birth rates are decreasing all around the world, Germany faces lower birth rates than the United States. Data reveals that in Germany, there are 8.37 births per 1,000 of the population size compared to in the United States, where there are 13.66 births per 1,000 of the population size (“Germany vs United States People Stats Compared”). In a Washington Post article, author Anthony Faiola relates that the low German birth rate may explain desires to increase immigration. He explains, “because of a morbidly low birthrate, the population here is shrinking, raising the pivotal question of who will keep the massive German economy humming in the years ahead” (Faiola). The low birth rate demonstrates Germany’s need for an immigrant population to ensure its continued economic, political, and social successes.
Another explanation that could contribute to Germany’s better treatment of asylum seekers is its higher financial devotion to social welfare and hence greater ability to support immigrants than the United States. Research shows that immigration families rely on welfare at higher proportions than native families. Over 50% of the immigrant households in the United States receive welfare compared to 30% of native households (Cave). Germany spends a larger percentage of its GDP on social welfare than the United States does, meaning it devotes a larger portion of its money to accommodate more immigrants. Data indicates that in 2019, Germany spent 25.9% of its total GDP on public social spending while the United States only spent 18.7% of its total GDP on welfare (“Social Expenditure Database (SOCX)”).However, although these explanations may help explain why Germany treats its asylum seekers better than the United States does, they are not complete explanations. In order to understand why differences in treatments at borders occur, it is important to conceptualize the evolutions of countries’ immigration sentiments throughout history in order to understand their immigration politics today. This paper offers a more complete, permanent explanation of the differing conditions of asylum seekers.
Conclusion
Drastically different procedures and policies outline immigration in every country. The United States holds a long and specific process of seeking asylum, while Germany’s process is much simpler. Due to high rates of detention and overcrowding at the United States border, asylum seekers held in detention often face cruel and inhumane conditions. This paper argues that histories of anti-immigration sentiment in the United States and the failure to ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention culminate in these heinous conditions at the border today. On the contrary, Germany’s more positive immigration sentiment is seen in its decision to ratify the Convention and its better conditions for asylum seekers at its borders. Further research is needed to understand whether the signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention itself increased immigration sentiment in Germany, if positive immigration politics led to the signing of the Convention, or if a combination of both pathways occurred. Ultimately, in order to understand and propose solutions to eliminate the abuses and violations of human rights that are occurring at the United States border today, an analysis of immigration political history, as conducted here, is essential.
References
“AILA – Featured Issue: First 100 Days of the Biden Administration.” American Immigration Lawyers Association, www.aila.org/advo-media/issues/all/first-100-days.
“Asylum in the United States.” American Immigration Council, 26 Feb. 2021, www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states.
“Asylum Seeking Process.” UNHCR Germany, help.unhcr.org/germany/asylum-in-germany/asylum-seeking-process/.
“An Overview of U.S. Refugee Law and Policy.” American Immigration Council, 7 Nov. 2020, www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/overview-us-refugee-law-and-policy.
Cave, Anthony. “Are Most Immigrants on Welfare?” CLASP, 24 Aug. 2017, www.clasp.org/press-room/news-clips/verify-are-most-immigrants-welfare.
“Conditions in Migrant Detention Centers.” American Oversight, 20 Jan. 2021, www.americanoversight.org/investigation/conditions-in-migrant-detention-centers.
Dieper, Susanne. “Seventy Years as a Country of Immigrants: What’s Next for Germany?” AICGS, www.aicgs.org/2019/05/seventy-years-as-a-country-of-immigrants-whats-next-for-germany/.Faiola, Anthony. “The New Land of Opportunity for Immigrants Is Germany.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 27 July 2014,