America’s Asylum System Is Failing, Catholic Universities Must Not Stay Silent

Quinn Lambert, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy 

Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication. 

At the southern border and in immigration courts across the country, thousands of asylum seekers wait months, sometimes years, for protection that international law promises, but the United States increasingly restricts. Families fleeing gang violence in Central America, political repression in Venezuela, and armed conflict in parts of Africa arrive seeking refuge under a right recognized in the 1951 Refugee Convention and incorporated into U.S. law through the Refugee Act of 1980. Instead, many encounter expedited removals, detention facilities, and procedural barriers that make safety feel uncertain.

The American Immigration Council reports that the asylum backlog now exceeds two million pending cases. Human Rights First has documented thousands of reported kidnappings, assaults, and violent attacks against asylum seekers who were turned away or forced to wait in dangerous border regions. These are not abstract statistics. They represent people who sought lawful protection and were left exposed to further harm.

Supporters of stricter border enforcement argue that the current system is overwhelmed and vulnerable to abuse. Officials have claimed that tighter eligibility standards and faster removals are necessary to deter fraudulent claims and maintain national security. Others insist that border states lack the resources to process the volume of arrivals, and that federal enforcement measures are simply pragmatic responses to logistical strain. These concerns deserve acknowledgment. Immigration courts are underfunded. Processing systems are slow. Border communities do face real pressures. However, deterrence has not solved the problem. 

Research from the Migration Policy Institute indicates that restrictive policies do not eliminate migration flows when people are fleeing credible threats. Instead, they push vulnerable individuals into more dangerous conditions. International human rights law, including the principle of nonrefoulement, prohibits returning people to places where they face persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly affirmed that access to fair asylum procedures is a legal obligation, not a discretionary favour. 

The moral question is just as urgent as the legal one. Catholic Social Teaching emphasizes the inherent dignity of every human person and the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. Pope Francis has consistently called on nations to welcome, protect, promote, and integrate migrants. In a 2023 address, he reminded political leaders that indifference toward migrants contradicts the Gospel’s command to care for the stranger. When policies result in prolonged detention, family separation, or return to danger, they conflict not only with international commitments but also with core Catholic principles.

Some argue that universities should avoid taking positions on politically divisive issues. Higher education, they say, should remain neutral to preserve intellectual diversity. Yet neutrality in the face of systemic harm is not value free. Catholic universities in particular are mission driven institutions. Regis University affirms a commitment to justice, service, and solidarity with marginalized communities. If those commitments mean anything, they must extend beyond campus slogans and into public witness.

This does not require partisan endorsement. It requires moral clarity. Universities can advocate for increased funding for immigration courts to reduce backlogs and ensure due process. They can expand legal aid clinics that support asylum seekers navigating complex proceedings. They can host public forums grounded in data and Catholic social thought rather than rhetoric. They can partner with local refugee resettlement agencies in Denver to provide practical support. According to the American Bar Association, asylum seekers with legal representation are significantly more likely to succeed in their claims. Expanding access to counsel is both humane and effective.

Critics may respond that institutional advocacy risks alienating donors or dividing the campus community. That risk exists. Universities thrive on diverse viewpoints. Yet constructive disagreement should not paralyse action on clear human rights concerns. A campus capable of debating theology, philosophy, and public policy is also capable of engaging immigration reform thoughtfully.

The United States has long described itself as a refuge for the persecuted. The Statue of Liberty’s promise is woven into the national narrative. When asylum procedures become so restrictive that credible claims are dismissed or delayed indefinitely, that promise weakens. The question facing Catholic institutions is not whether immigration policy is complex. It is whether complexity excuses silence.

If a university founded on Jesuit values will not defend the right to seek refuge, who will? Silence may feel safe, but it is not neutral. It is a choice. The moment demands something stronger: informed advocacy, moral consistency, and the courage to stand publicly with those whose safety depends on it.