Joann Kwek (15) 3 Truth 2019

Socratic Circle Discussion :

(What responsibility do countries have to respond to the needs of asylum seekers? Why do you say so
? What are some things that have to be considered in this case study)

1. According to National Public Radio, The Trump administration is taking steps to stem the
flow of migrants crossing the U.S border from Mexico, and have issued a new rule designed
to prohibit migrants who cross the border outside of designated entry points(illegally) from
seeking asylum in the U.S. At a first glance, it may seem like it is the fault of the asylum
seekers as they chose to enter via undesignated areas. However, this should not be accepted
as a reason to prohibit these asylum seekers from seeking asylum in the United States, for It
is in accordance with the laws of the Unites States, section 1225(b) , that Any alien who is
physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not
at a designated port of arrival), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in
accordance with this section or, where applicable. Therefore, in this sense, The Trump
administration does have an obligation to respond to the need of asylum seekers, regardless
of whether they enter via designated or undesignated areas. Should they fail to do so, it
would seem like they are disregarding the laws of the United States, and the needs and
rights of asylum seekers. The executive order cannot displace domestic legal obligations. So
those who, with great difficulty, manage to reach the US will have to have their asylum
claims examined. The duty not to return a person to a state where they may face torture or
other serious harms is absolute under the UN’s Convention Against Torture. The US has
signed and ratified this convention.

2. Firstly, we understand that Asylum seekers flee from their home countries in search of a
better life. Hence, regarding the use of tear gas on the Mexico Border to prevent and deter
asylum seekers from entering the U.S. via undesignated points, dozens of tear gas canisters
fired by the Americans were visible on the Mexican side of the border immediately after the
episode. This is questionable since the use of such weapons were against people who were
not considered to be on United States soil. Similar to what a professor of international
human rights and humanitarian law at the University of Essex in Britain said, while all
countries have the right to control who comes into their territory, this doesn’t give
authorities right to fire tear gas into another country. This point can be supported by the
United Nations Charter on the sovereign rights and obligations of member countries. In
Article 2, it says that members of the United Nations “shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity” of other members.
Therefore, this seems as if the Trump administration is disregarding their obligation by law,
to respond to the needs of asylum seekers, even if they enter via undesignated areas, and
even taking measures to prevent asylum seekers from even entering the US.

3. An asylum-seeker is a person who has left their country and is seeking protection from
persecution and serious human rights violations in another country, but who hasn’t yet been
legally recognized as a refugee and is waiting to receive a decision on their asylum claim.
Seeking asylum is a human right. This means everyone should be allowed to enter another
country to seek asylum. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 14), which states
that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. All
people have a right to human rights, regardless of background, race, nationality or any other
status. Therefore, looking at things in this perspective, countries should not ban asylum
seekers from entering their country as that would be violating their human rights.

[Type here]
Joann Kwek (15) 3 Truth 2019

4. (can link with 3) Just as countries should not ban asylum seekers from entering their country,
they should not do so indirectly as well. What I mean by this is that, tough deterrents should
not be enforced to indirectly cause asylum seekers on the borders to give up their search for
a better life, which do fall under the topic of human rights. According to the UN, Human
rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of any status. Such rights include
the right to life and liberty, and the freedom from slavery and torture. Therefore, should
asylum seekers be subject to such poor living conditions back in their home country, they, in
this aspect, should not be banned, or even deterred from seeking asylum in another country.
As described by the above stated human right of life and freedom from torture, one can say
that these asylum seekers are almost entitled to seek asylum in other countries. Putting
things into the context of the US immigration crisis, The US is a member of the United
Nations. Therefore, all the more the US should refrain from using such deterrents to respect
the human rights of the asylum seekers. According to The New York Times, some of the
tough deterrents that President Trump of the US have employed include imposing limits in
the number of people that can apply for the status each day and a heightened standard of
proof to quality.

[Type here]