Ahead of Donald J. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, Zac Davis and Ashley McKinless spoke with Kelly Ryan, the president of Jesuit Refugee Service USA, about her 30 years of experience working with refugees, asylum seekers and migrants for the “Jesuitical” podcast. The following excerpt from their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Zac Davis: Maybe we could just start by taking a look at regular immigration, refugees and people seeking asylum. Could you define each of those as “buckets” and what is JRS USA’s work addressing all of those?
Kelly Ryan: The modern immigration laws that guide lawful immigration to the United States are the 1952 act (The Immigration and Nationality Act) that was a reform from previous times where we limited countries based on geography. The I.N.A. creates categories where people can come to the United States—categories for religious workers, exceptional talent, business skills and so on. There’s H-2B as you may have read about in the newspaper. And then there’s also a really important category that is often overlooked, which is H-2A, which are seasonal agricultural workers. They’re out there picking the apples and oranges and grapes all over the country, and they’re extremely valuable to our food supply chain.
It’s a visa system, and the visa system leads toward the opportunity to get lawful permanent residents. Generally, that happens after five years of a visa. Normally, you would hear people call that a green card. And then, after the green card is obtained, you can seek citizenship five years after that. So, our system is designed to try and get people to become citizens. Now, there are also different humanitarian visas, including the T visa for trafficked people, the U visa for people who have been victims of crimes.
Then there is the opportunity if you’re physically present in the United States to apply for asylum. The definition of who is eligible for asylum is the refugee definition. Any person applying for asylum has to establish that they have faced past persecution or would be persecuted in the future on a count of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Many people who’ve come to the United States who’ve gotten asylum have come for religious reasons. These are religious minorities. Political opinion examples are Chinese dissidents, people from the former Soviet Union, [they have] accessed it for that reason. You have to establish that you’re in this group, and that you would be persecuted, and that you cannot go home, that you’re not able to return home.
ZD: President Trump’s administration has called for immediate and sweeping deportations. Is that possible? What do you think that would look like?
KR: We’ve had large scale removals from the United States for decades. The highest were really under President Obama. So I think there will continue to be removals of people. We have programs right now, for example, where there are immigration judges linked to detention facilities where criminals have their hearing even before they finish their criminal sentence, and they’re removed. That’s happening every day in the United States. I would hope that [Mr. Trump’s border czar] Tom Homan, who really does know immigration and has worked on it for decades, would continue what he did in his previous jobs, which is to prioritize terrorism and very serious crimes. Those people should be removed from the United States. I think all Americans would agree on that. On the other hand, there is a requirement that another country accepts the return of the nationals, so it depends quite a bit on whether they’re going to ask Mexico to accept people who’ve been here for quite some period of time. And it’s not clear to me that Mexico would agree.
If we can keep with [deporting] those [who have committed crimes], I think that would make the American public happier. The idea that the sort of people who’ve overstayed a visa 20 years ago and are deeply embedded in the community, pay taxes, and so on—I think there’s less sympathy for removing those people. You have to use your resources strategically, and the resources should be spent on the people who pose a danger to security in the United States.
ZD: That’s a sound argument. What do you think is going to happen?
KR: You know, I can’t predict. I’ve heard a number of things, but I can’t predict. But right now there is a very aggressive removals program for people who’ve recently arrived in the United States and for people who are criminals. I expect they would carry that on; whether they accelerate that to the 11 million people who’ve stayed here for much longer periods of time, it’s hard to say. They’d have to have more money, more beds, and more people to do that work.
Ashley McKinless: There’s been a tendency since the rise of Donald Trump to paint any opposition to increased migration as coming from a place of either xenophobia or racism. His reelection has challenged that notion; in New York City and Chicago where there was an influx of migrants being housed in hotels and given benefits—working-class people were upset. I worry that there’s a P.R. problem when it comes to our immigration system. I do think at heart Americans are welcoming, generous people, but they want to be a country of laws. We want a certain amount of fairness. Is this something JRS is working on?
KR: We’re trying to. This is a complicated area. I do think asylum is really at risk, and I think it’s such an important and beautiful part of our identity as a people, and I think we can explain it better. I believe that there’s a huge movable middle and attacking people who say, “There’s overcrowding in my school,” and calling them a xenophobe is really counterproductive and pushes them away from understanding this issue.
But there are all sorts of data on that point—that when we talk about people not as being different, but we emphasize our common humanity, our common human dignity, that we’re all made in the image and likeness of God, it just resonates much more with people. That has been lost, particularly on the left, they’ve been holding up refugees as somehow better or different. I often say to myself: “What is the lady in Appalachia thinking about this? How is she relating to this way we’re glorifying one group of people?” I just don’t think it’s helpful. I think if we start from the human dignity angle, we can bring everybody into the fold. I found that in my discourse with people on all parts of the political spectrum in the United States; nobody fights me on human dignity. Nobody says, “Oh, no, they’re not dignified.” They acknowledge it. I think that’s where we have to start and move the needle from there.
AM: This is an issue that Catholics—the U.S. bishops and Jesuits in the United States—have been very vocal about for decades, calling for comprehensive immigration reform, and then more recently calling for solidarity with people who are here and might be targeted for deportation. Why is this such a high priority for the church?
KR: This has nothing to do with bringing more of our fellow co-religious in. This has to do with basic principles about who we are as a church. And the church has long taught that we have a duty to welcome the stranger—we use in our language the refuge that Joseph, Jesus and Mary sought. All of it comes from the idea that each person has inherent human dignity. And so any immigration process should treat people with dignity and respect, and any immigration process for refugees or asylum-seekers should help those who are not in a position to help themselves. That’s our duty as Catholics.
It’s the teaching of the church that we’re carrying out. And those teachings don’t say “everybody needs to stay.” They say countries can defend their borders. Countries have a right to have immigration processes that work, but enforcement efforts should be targeted, and they should be humane, and they shouldn’t just be random. Proportionality is a really important issue for us, and that we’re a country of law, so humanitarian protections and due process have to be ensured. We are guided by our faith, but it is something that is also consistent with American values.
ZD: Catholic social teaching emphasizes the right to not have to migrate. I’m curious what that kind of advocacy work looks like for JRS.
KR: This is a very important area that has not gotten the attention that it should get. This is something that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have all spoken about. With Catholic theology, it’s always rights and responsibilities: It’s right to do something and also to have to do something else. So with the right not to migrate, it’s always linked to the right to be able to leave your country. It’s the two-pronged approach. But the right not to migrate really is Catholic social thought. It’s integral economic development. It’s creating conditions where people can flourish in dignity and respect, where they can have access to education. There are opportunities for livelihoods. There is the opportunity to practice your faith.
If communities are able to flourish, the irregular migration will precipitously decline. People may choose to leave regularly to pursue schooling opportunities, meet with family or for work. But the idea of having to leave will really be decreased. If we focus the United States’ attention on that, if we do grassroots development, if we engage the Catholic churches so that people feel safe and can live in dignity, this is really going to chip away at this huge number of people who are taking their lives in their hands and getting in caravans and using smugglers and traffickers to try and leave their countries.
