When responsible readers want to stay up-to-date, they inevitably encounter and are compelled to scrutinize political bias in the media to gain a nuanced and factual understanding of current events. Variations in the underlying beliefs of major political parties play a significant role in media bias according to their various policy stances. One stance of contention is the policy stance on border asylum of refugees.
Border asylum of refugees, or refugee migration, refers to the politics of accepting asylum seekers. Notably, a person is considered an ‘asylum seeker’ if they have left their country and are seeking international protection as a refugee, but they do not become a ‘refugee’ until their claim has been approved on the basis of a well-grounded fear of persecution from their country of origin. Additionally, a ‘refugee’ is someone who has been granted protections while still abroad, while an ‘asylee’ is someone who meets the definition of a refugee and is already in the U.S. or a port of entry seeking asylum. Since asylum is a discretionary status, those who meet the technical definition for a refugee can still be denied asylum.
The U.S. system for receiving refugees was adopted when Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980, which reformed the earlier policies set in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 and the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, significantly shaping American policy for asylum. In January of 2025, the Trump Administration suspended U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in alignment with the Republican Party’s stress on border security. This order was contested by the Pacito v. Trump lawsuit challenging the suspension of the USRAP and related funding decisions.
While the Republican Party prefers stricter refugee policies with an emphasis on persecuting illegal immigration and decreasing the number of refugees accepted into the states, the Democratic and liberal stance on border security is more favorable toward making the processes for seeking asylum and obtaining citizenship easier.
The Democratic Stance on Border Asylum of Refugees
The Democratic Party stance on asylum policies supports changes that would make it easier for refugees to be accepted.
Their arguments are focused on the humanitarian approach, emphasizing the importance of processing asylum claims to facilitate legal pathways into the country and citizenship. While some hold these values because they prioritize providing protections and assistance to asylum seekers, others with more moderate views may prioritize controlled immigration.
Democrats tend to regard refugee migration more positively than Republicans. The difference between the parties’ perceptions of refugee migration is best reflected by polling. A 2018 Pew poll shows that 74% of Democrats believe the US has a responsibility to take in refugees, compared to only 26% of Republicans. A newer 2022 Pew poll showed support for taking in civilian refugees from 72% of Americans. The numbers of Democrats and Republicans who said it was ‘somewhat’ important were very similar at a little over 4-in-10, but 41% of Democrats classified taking in civilian refugees as ‘very important’ while only 13% of Republican respondents reported the same views, with totals of 85% of Democrats supporting and 58% of Republicans supporting taking in refugees overall.
The Republican Stance on Border Asylum of Refugees
Republicans approach migrant policies with a priority on strict border security measures and increased enforcement as they focus on national security and overall stability.
They are particularly concerned with issues of illegal entrance to the country, supporting increased deportations, and tend to support stricter controls on asylum access and increased difficulty in obtaining citizenship. As they desire to deter illegal immigration and the entrance of unsafe individuals, they also prefer to increase the difficulty of the process for legal asylum.
The Republican Party platform assumes the position that refugee intake is a potential national security threat and thus that increased screenings on refugee applicants are a necessity. The Democratic platform, meanwhile, speaks more generously about refugees, but still acknowledges a need for some form of screening.
Although the parties have some differences in their approaches to refugee asylum, they share a recognition that the existing immigration policies are inadequate to address the problems at the border. The challenge of the situation involves balancing border security and the internationally acknowledged right to asylum.
To see individual politicians’ stances on different policies, please visit the ‘Politician’s Stance Tracker.’
Policy on Border Asylum of Refugees in the United States
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1951 Refugee Convention recognize the right to seek asylum from persecution and are accepted as law internationally. Additionally, the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to a country where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations, is also observed internationally. These work as guides for foreign policy on immigration as well as refugee policy in America.
Policy on refugees in the U.S. requires asylum applicants to be physically present in the United States or at a port of entry. Following a successful application, an asylee may apply for lawful permanent resident status, also known as a green card, after one year. If the asylee is able to become a permanent resident, they can apply for citizenship after at least four more years.
While international law protects refugees in many ways, there are still some grounds on which asylum-seekers can have their application denied in the United States, including:
- Failing to apply for asylum within a year of entrance to the U.S.
- Having been previously deported from the U.S.
- Being deemed a danger to the country based on having committed a “particularly serious crime” or having been shown to persecute others
Outside of these disqualifications, refugees are protected.
Even if a refugee is denied asylum, they can still apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) if their country has been designated as eligible for TPS. TPS recipients are protected temporarily, as the title implies, and are not on a path to eventual citizenship. This designation protects individuals from deportation and was expanded under the Biden administration.
The program handling refugees in the United States is the USRAP. Other countries have their own programs for refugee matters which they also adapted from international standards, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the United Nations.
A Brief History of Border Asylum of Refugees Policy in the U.S.
The first U.S. refugee legislation, the Displaced Persons Act, was introduced by Congress in 1948 as a response to the admission of displaced Europeans. Later on, following the fall of Vietnam in 1975 which led to a number of asylum-seekers exceeding the means of the existing Refugee Task Force and temporary funding, Congress passed The Refugee Act of 1980.
The Refugee Act of 1980 standardized resettlement of refugees across the States. The legislation used the U.N. Protocol as a basis for details such as the definition of “refugee,” building off of existing laws to establish a working system in America.
The U.N. Protocol was built on the international laws set forth in the Refugee Convention following World War II, which incorporated the right to seek asylum into international law. These continue to be the basis for treatment of refugees internationally.
As of 2025, the Trump administration issued an order to suspend asylum rights at the southern border of the United States. This order had been challenged by the Pacito v. Trump lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the suspension of the USRAP and related funding. The lawsuit argues President Trump’s proclamation goes against decisions made by Congress and the courts without creating viable alternatives for the people who have historically been protected by these decisions.
Also in 2025, the Trump administration expressed the intention to reimpliment the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as “Remain in Mexico,” which had been set in the first Trump administration. This policy required asylum-seekers from Mexico to stay in Mexico while they waited on their immigration court cases. However, this intention has been put on temporary hold by the federal court as they dispute the case.
What the Future Holds
As the Trump administration continues to push for the indefinite suspension of the USRAP in accordance with conservative and Republican party views, legal challenges persist in conflict as the constitutionality of the suspension is contested. The result of the case will have a significant impact on refugee asylum policy in the United States in the future.
Additional influences on the U.S. asylum policy include global trends of migration such as displacement due to conflict in foreign nations. Whether increases of asylum-seekers fleeing from conflict in their countries of citizenship will increase or decrease the willingness of other nations to accept them remains to be seen.
To unlock more data-driven insights into media bias, explore political leanings with research-backed tools, and customize your news feed around what matters most to you, sign up for a Biasly Premium News Membership.