PART ONE
For generations, the United States has represented something larger than a country with strong borders and a powerful economy. For millions fleeing persecution, war and political repression, America represented the possibility of safety. The Statue of Liberty became a symbol not simply of immigration, but of refuge.
That image is now under profound pressure.
The latest data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show how sharply the U.S. asylum system has changed. TRAC’s current fiscal-year data show asylum grants at just 5.9 percent, while 94.1 percent of asylum decisions resulted in denial during the first nine months of fiscal year 2026.
These figures demand attention, but they should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of a much larger global story: wars without resolution, rising authoritarianism, persecution of political and religious minorities, weakening democratic institutions and an international system increasingly struggling to protect people who have nowhere safe to return.
The question is therefore no longer simply how America treats asylum seekers.
The deeper question is what happens to the idea of refuge when the world becomes more dangerous while the doors of refuge become narrower.
A World Producing Refugees
The modern refugee crisis is often the consequence of failures that begin long before a person reaches an American border.
War destroys homes. Political repression destroys freedom. Religious extremism destroys security. Ethnic persecution tears communities apart. Authoritarian governments criminalize dissent, while weak institutions allow armed groups, extremists and mobs to operate with impunity.
People then leave.
According to UNHCR, 41.6 million people were refugees at the end of 2025. Although that represented a decline from the previous year, the number remains extraordinarily high. UNHCR also reported that 117.8 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced by conflict, violence or persecution at the end of 2025.
Every statistic represents a human story.
A journalist may leave because exposing corruption has become dangerous. A political activist may flee after detention or threats. A religious minority may escape repeated attacks. An academic may become a target because of an unpopular opinion. An ethnic community may lose its sense of security because the state has failed to protect it.
For such people, asylum is not primarily about a better standard of living.
It is about finding somewhere they can live without fear.
War, Weapons and the Refugee Pipeline
There is an uncomfortable contradiction at the heart of today’s international order.
The world continues to invest enormous resources in military power while struggling to prevent wars that displace millions.
We discuss missiles, drones, nuclear deterrence and military alliances, but too often fail to discuss what follows when diplomacy collapses: destroyed cities, separated families, persecuted minorities and people crossing borders with little more than the hope of survival.
Disarmament, therefore, is not merely a security issue. It is also a humanitarian issue.
Every unnecessary war can create another generation of refugees. Every failure of diplomacy can turn a citizen into a displaced person. Every prolonged conflict makes voluntary return more difficult.
If the international community genuinely wants fewer refugees, it cannot focus exclusively on preventing people from crossing borders. It must also address the political and military conditions that force people to leave their homes.
The refugee crisis is often the final consequence of a crisis the international community failed to prevent.
When Your Own Country Becomes Unsafe
Not every refugee comes from a battlefield.
Some flee countries where there is no formal war at all.
Persecution can be political, religious, ethnic or ideological. A person may be threatened because of what they believe, what they write, what religion they practice, which community they belong to or whom they support.
That is why asylum protection is fundamentally connected with freedom of thought, human dignity and the right to live without persecution.
The international refugee protection system emerged from the terrible lessons of the Second World War. The principle of non-refoulement, which lies at the heart of international refugee protection, recognizes that people should not be returned to places where they face persecution or serious danger.
The principle sounds simple.
Its application is not.
An asylum judge may have to determine whether an applicant’s account is credible, whether the danger is genuine, whether the government of the home country can provide protection and whether returning the applicant would expose them to persecution.
That is a profound judicial responsibility.
America’s Changing Asylum System
The Trump administration has made immigration enforcement a central political priority, and the immigration courts have undergone significant change.
TRAC reports that 279 immigration judges were fired or resigned during fiscal years 2025 and 2026, representing roughly 38 percent of the immigration judges employed at the end of fiscal year 2024. At the same time, the administration has appointed large numbers of new judges.
The administration argues that the transformation is necessary to strengthen immigration-law enforcement and improve the efficiency of a severely backlogged system. The Department of Justice has also emphasized the appointment of record numbers of new immigration judges.
There is a legitimate argument for an immigration court system that is faster and more efficient.
But immigration justice cannot be measured only by the number of cases closed.
A court is not a factory.
The objective of justice is not simply to produce decisions. It is to produce fair decisions.
That distinction becomes especially important when a decision could determine whether a person is returned to a country where they claim to face persecution.
The Changing Bench Raises a Larger Question
The most striking aspect of the current transformation is not simply the number of cases being decided. It is the change within the adjudicative system itself.
TRAC’s judge-level data show a substantial increase in asylum denials among judges who have been continuously deciding asylum cases over the relevant period. Approximately three-quarters of the 130 judges examined had higher denial rates in fiscal year 2026 than in 2021, with average increases of about 33 percentage points.
This does not prove that individual judges are acting unlawfully. Nor does a high denial rate establish that an applicant was entitled to asylum.
But such a dramatic institutional change deserves public examination.
Immigration judges operate within the executive branch rather than the independent Article III federal judiciary. That structure has long raised questions about the degree of independence available to immigration adjudicators.
When an administration changes the composition, priorities and operating environment of an adjudicative system at extraordinary speed, public confidence becomes particularly important.
Justice must not only be done. It must also appear independent.
Efficiency Must Not Replace Due Process
The administration’s emphasis on case completion is understandable. America’s immigration courts have accumulated an enormous backlog.
But speed has limits.
An asylum case may involve years of political history, religious persecution, threats, arrests, family separation or violence. Evidence may come from countries where official records are unreliable. Witnesses may live thousands of miles away. Applicants may speak little or no English.
Many applicants also appear without lawyers.
An asylum seeker without legal assistance may not understand the legal standard, may fail to present important evidence or may be unable to explain why returning home would place them in danger.
A high-volume system can therefore create a dangerous illusion: that because a case was decided quickly, justice was necessarily done.
A fast decision is not necessarily a fair decision.
The Author is a Lawyer and Human Rights Defender
COMMENTS