The Real Immigration Crisis Isn’t the ICE Raid You Saw on TV
Why the Public Debate Misses a Developing Immigration Issue: Asylum Cooperative Agreements
By James Larsen, Managing Attorney.
Right now, the national spotlight on immigration is almost entirely fixed on Minneapolis — the ICE operation, the protests, and the shocking death of Renée Good at the hands of a federal agent during enforcement actions in the Twin Cities. That tragic shooting has sparked protests, federal injunctions, political grandstanding, and even court fights over ICE’s tactics and the Department of Homeland Security’s heavy-handed approach.
But amid all the coverage of ICE in Minneapolis — from debates over use of force to whether federal agents should be restrained from pepper-spraying peaceful demonstrators — one of the most structurally impactful immigration policies is being largely ignored: Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs).
ACAs are quietly reshaping what it means to seek protection in the United States. Under these agreements, the U.S. can shift responsibility for processing and deciding asylum claims to a third country such as Ecuador, Honduras, or Uganda — even if the asylum seeker has never set foot in that country, has no ties there, and has no realistic ability to integrate there. What’s more, this can happen after someone has already arrived in the U.S., entered an asylum case, obtained work authorization, and built part of a life here with the expectation of a fair hearing.
In practice, what happens now is this: a person enters the asylum system in the United States, attends court hearings for months or years, and prepares a full asylum case only to learn at the last minute — shortly before they would make their final argument — that the Department of Homeland Security intends to pretermit their asylum application and ask an immigration judge to send them to one of these third countries instead. They had every reason to expect their day in court — and now that chance can be taken away with almost no meaningful review.
The situation is made worse by a recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision that holds immigration judges cannot independently assess whether the designated third country is actually safe — that determination is placed solely in the hands of the government. A judge’s job becomes perfunctory rather than protective, and respondents are left with little recourse.
So while the nation’s airwaves and opinion pages are dominated by images and arguments over the ICE operation in Minneapolis — where federal agents have been accused of excessive force, protests have erupted, and scrutiny over a fatal shooting is fierce — the structural overhaul of asylum access is happening with far less visibility.
This doesn’t mean the public concern over Minneapolis is misplaced — that shooting is horrific, and it deserves investigation, accountability, and serious conversation. But the broader policy of ACAs raises just as serious, long-term questions about due process, fairness, and America’s commitment to asylum protection. It means that someone fleeing persecution could make it to the U.S., navigate a complex legal maze, and still be told “no hearing” and “go to Country X” just because Washington decided it’s a partner in an agreement that few outside immigration law circles have heard of.
The public debate on immigration should include these issues, not just dramatic enforcement headlines. Because ACAs don’t just change a policy — they change the promise that those fleeing danger have any fair shot at asylum in the United States at all.
Immigration law changes rapidly. This article is for informational purposes only, reflects the law as of its publication date, and may be superseded by later changes in the law, regulations or agency policy. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.La ley de inmigración cambia rápidamente. Este artículo es solo para fines informativos, refleja la ley a la fecha de su publicación y puede quedar superado por cambios posteriores en la ley, las regulaciones o las políticas de las agencias. No es asesoría legal, y leerlo no crea una relación abogado-cliente.