People from various parts of the globe, including Eritrea, Guatemala, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ghana, Uzbekistan, and other nations, have been arriving at the U.S. border seeking asylum. They cite threats based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or political affiliations as reasons for seeking refuge. Historically, these individuals were given a platform to present their cases to U.S. authorities. However, that opportunity is shrinking.
“They didn’t give us an ICE officer to talk to. They didn’t give us an interview. No one asked me what happened,” lamented a Russian election worker, who sought asylum in the U.S. after recording instances of election fraud. He, along with his family, was deported to Costa Rica on February 26. This shift follows President Donald Trump’s return to the White House, where he halted the asylum system soon after commencing his second term. This move was part of a broader strategy aimed at quelling what he described as an “invasion” of illegal immigration, marked by executive orders on January 20.
According to immigrants, activists, and legal experts, the reality for asylum seekers now is a complex, mutable situation with limited transparency. Many are sent to unfamiliar countries after brief interactions with immigration and customs officials, while others face prolonged detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Attorneys serving these asylum seekers report significant declines in communication since Trump resumed office, suspecting immediate expulsions or extended detentions for alternative screenings under international accords against torture, which impose stricter criteria than asylum applications.
“It’s a mystery what happens to those requesting asylum,” said Bella Mosselmans, director of the Global Strategic Litigation Council. Meanwhile, this cessation of asylum measures has led to a slew of legal challenges, with lawsuits and countering actions filling the courts as opposition groups claim the actions unlawfully endanger those fleeing persecution. One crucial legal dispute might see a federal judge rule on the administration’s use of “invasion” claims to justify halting asylum processes; a decision has not yet been scheduled.
The government contends that its labeling of the situation as an invasion is beyond the scope of judicial review. Rights groups, however, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the announcement is not only illegal but also novel, as detailed in a court filing in Washington, D.C.’s federal court. During President Joe Biden’s term, illegal border crossings had surged, peaking at nearly 10,000 arrests daily by late 2023. As his administration wound down and Trump returned, those numbers declined but remained significant, with over 200 individuals arrested daily for unlawful border crossings. It’s difficult, however, to ascertain how many of these individuals seek asylum.
Paulina Reyes-Perrariz, managing attorney at the San Diego Immigrant Defenders Law Center, observed a steep drop in calls from asylum seekers following Trump’s policies. Her office, which once received 10 to 15 queries daily after Biden’s policies took effect, saw calls nearly cease since January 20. This uncertainty leaves lawyers unsure of how to navigate asylum cases. “It’s really difficult to consult and advise with individuals when we don’t know what the process is,” she stated.
A Russian man, who prefers anonymity due to fears of persecution upon returning to his native land, was caught off guard by these developments. “We felt betrayed,” he confessed. His family, adhering to protocol, traveled to Mexico in May 2024, rented a cheap apartment at the California border, and waited months to secure an asylum interview scheduled for February 2. This was abruptly canceled on January 20.
Following Trump’s oath of office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection eliminated the asylum interview scheduling system, clearing tens of thousands of appointments with no recourse to contest this decision. Detained at a San Diego border crossing, the Russian family was eventually deported to Costa Rica, with only their child exempt from being shackled.
Under Trump’s administration, countries like Costa Rica and Panama have become temporary holding points for deported individuals, awaiting repatriation or relocation. Recently, around 200 individuals were sent to Costa Rica, and 300 to Panama. Advocates of stricter immigration laws argue that the asylum system is compromised by exaggerated claims from individuals not facing genuine threats. Although between a third and half of asylum applications have historically been accepted, even pro-immigration politicians acknowledge system abuses.
Barney Frank, a retired Democratic congressman, asserted last year that some individuals have learned to exploit the asylum process to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while pursuing claims. However, facing an uncertain future, the Russian family remains where they were first detained in Costa Rica, unable to envisage returning to Russia.
Spending their days teaching their son Russian and some English, the man organizes volleyball games to pass time. He remains empathetic to America’s efforts to address illegal immigration yet feels the system failed to hear his plea. In the face of despair, he worries about what his actions in Russia have brought upon his family. “I failed them,” he laments, haunted by this thought daily.