[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fasylum-reform-withdraw-from-the-un-treaty-or-not Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Fcis%2Fasylum-reform-withdraw-from-the-un-treaty-or-not)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])

Asylum Reform: Withdraw from the UN Treaty, or Not? ([link removed])
From a recent international conference in D.C.
Follow Parsing Immigration Policy on Ricochet ([link removed]) , Apple Podcasts ([link removed]) , YouTube ([link removed]) , Amazon Music ([link removed]) , Spotify ([link removed]) , Pandora ([link removed]) , or use the podcast's RSS Feed ([link removed]) .

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 13, 2025) – This week’s Parsing Immigration Policy podcast features a panel discussion from the third annual conference of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR) ([link removed]) , convened recently in Washington. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, and Yonatan Jakubowicz, Director of the Israeli Immigration Policy Center, offer contrasting perspectives on how to fix the asylum system – the main vehicle for illegal immigration to the developed world – as established in the 1951 Refugee Convention (often called the Geneva Convention) and the 1967 Protocol.

Krikorian argues that meaningful asylum reform requires that the United States to withdraw from the UN refugee treaty, restoring national control over immigration decisions. “The Refugee Convention is an asymmetrical agreement that binds democratic countries but does not affect the behavior of non-democratic countries,” he notes.

Jakubowicz agrees that the asylum system is not working, but he maintains that reform is possible without abandoning the Geneva framework. He points out that the Convention itself leaves wide discretion to states on who qualifies as “lawfully present,” meaning that nations can strengthen enforcement and restrict abuse within the treaty’s existing terms. The key, he argues, is to return to the drafters’ original intent and the plain text – not the expansive interpretations that have emerged over time.

Both speakers agree that sending illegal-alien asylum-seekers to third countries represents the future of asylum. Unlike the “Remain in Mexico” approach, where illegal border-crossers are still permitted to apply for asylum in the target country, but must do so from outside, what Krikorian calls “Remain in Mongolia” would bar illegal aliens altogether from applying for asylum in the U.S. (or Europe, Israel, etc.), and would send them to a safe country that has an agreement with the U.S. to apply there. Once it becomes clear that simply uttering the word “asylum” is no longer the key to entry or work authorization, far fewer people will attempt to exploit the system.

Videos of the full conference will be posted in the near future.

Donate ([link removed])
Related Articles:

The End of Asylum ([link removed])

Safe Third Countries: The Future of Asylum and Immigration Control ([link removed])

============================================================
** Facebook ([link removed])
** [link removed] ([link removed])
** Link ([link removed])
** RSS ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © 2025 Center for Immigration Studies, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
Center for Immigration Studies
1629 K St., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
USA

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.

** View this e-mail in your browser. ([link removed])

This is the Center for Immigration Studies CISNews e-mail list.