In order to halt the increasing chaos at the border following the migrants’ separation from their children and families and unprecedented deaths caused due to shortage of facilities, the White House has now planned to indulge in the US-El Salvador asylum deal. Though the entire idea of the deal has been heavily criticized by analysts and political experts.
With a significant increase in the number of illegal immigration in the country, the move is highly supported by the government supporters, who favor the idea of a complete ban on immigration practices. They believe that allowing asylum seekers in the country has been poorly affecting the resources and facilities given to the US citizens.
Moreover, the demography of the US shows that it has now become the third most populous country in the world. Nearly 39 million immigrants have come to the country since 1965, with most coming from Asia and Latin America. The number has only been increasing, despite various rules and policies made by the government, keeping in mind both the migrants and the actual citizens.
In an attempt to curtail the ongoing crisis, DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan signed an asylum deal agreement with El Salvador’s minister of foreign affairs Alexandra Hill on Friday. While the terms of the deal would focus on sending many asylum seekers to the Central American nation, the Salvadorans trying to flee their own country would remain unaffected by it.
Since, the details of the agreement have not been finalized, it gained huge criticism from the anti-government leaders, who supported their cause by saying that El Salvador is one of the most violent countries in the world.
As known, there have been various cases of violence, poverty and corruption in El-Salvador and the citizens of this country constitute the majority of asylum seekers in the US. But the question is, if the citizens of El-Salvador are moving to the US, saving their lives, then would it not be a life threatening situation to send the other countries’ migrants to the Central American country?
Backing the asylum deal, McAleenan said that the US would help El Salvador to build that capacity and achieve their goals.
“Individuals crossing through El Salvador should be able to seek protections” there, even if their intention is to apply for asylum in the United States, McAleenan added.
Previously, a similar deal was sealed with Guatemala, which the US government suggested was a third safe country for taking in asylum seekers, who travel through its borders. Though the deal has not been considered by the Guatemalan Congress yet.
Amid the entire criticism, the government has not yet specified the date from which the asylum deal would be implemented. Does this mean that the signed agreement could be revoked, depending upon the severity of unacceptance in the country?