On July 26th, 2019, the United States and Guatemala signed a “safe third country” agreement. This agreement allows the U.S. to send asylum seekers to Guatemala to seek refuge there instead of the U.S.
The idea behind the agreement is that if someone is seeking asylum in the U.S., but passes through another country without applying for asylum there, such as Guatemala, that person can be sent back to the safe third country to apply for asylum there instead. This means that Guatemala would be responsible for processing the asylum claims of those who enter the U.S. through Guatemala.
The agreement has been met with controversy. Critics argue that Guatemala is not a safe country for refugees and that the agreement violates international law. The U.S. State Department’s own travel advisory rates Guatemala as a Level 3: Reconsider Travel due to crime, kidnapping, and other security concerns.
Opponents of the agreement argue that it will put vulnerable populations, such as LGBTQ individuals and women, at risk. There are also concerns about the lack of resources in Guatemala to properly process asylum claims.
Proponents of the agreement argue that it will help alleviate the burden on the U.S. immigration system by reducing the number of asylum seekers who arrive at the U.S. border. The Trump administration has been pushing for similar agreements with other countries in the region, such as Honduras and El Salvador.
The agreement has also faced legal challenges. In September 2019, a federal judge in California issued a temporary injunction blocking the agreement from taking effect. The judge argued that the agreement could lead to “mass refoulement” of asylum seekers, which is the forced return of refugees to countries where they may face persecution or harm.
In January 2020, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, allowing the agreement to go into effect. However, the full Ninth Circuit is currently reviewing the case.
Overall, the safe third country agreement with Guatemala remains a contentious issue. It has been praised by some as a way to combat illegal immigration and criticized by others as a violation of human rights. As the legal challenges continue, it remains to be seen how the agreement will impact the U.S. asylum system.
