The Trump administration is considering a proposal that would bar asylum for those who transit through a third country, a potential major escalation in the administration’s attempts to deter asylum-seekers, according to sources close to the administration.

The proposal, included in a draft interim final rule from the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, would represent just the latest in multiple attempts by the Trump administration to discourage asylum-seekers from trying to enter the United States. Previous moves, such as banning asylum for those who crossed the border between ports of entry, were blocked by the courts, and this effort, if finalized, would likely face a court challenge also.

Language in the proposal, which was described to BuzzFeed News, claims that immigrants coming to the US transit through not just one country but through multiple countries in which they can seek some protection but do not make themselves available to that option.

It includes an additional limitation on eligibility: Those seeking asylum will be found ineligible if they have entered or attempted to enter the US after failing to apply for asylum or other protections in any country that is not the country of origin for the immigrant and that they went through to get to the US.

Politico first reported the existence of the draft proposal.



DHS officials have raised concerns about the policy, which has been described as overly broad, including whether it would cover people who traveled through airports in other countries and pointing out that other countries do not offer full asylum protections.

“The administration’s pattern of enacting harsh border policies that are quickly walked back or enjoined is contributing to the urgency asylum seekers feel to get to the U.S. border as quickly as possible. There is no doubt that this new plan would follow suit,” said Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. “The administration already tried to alter qualifications to apply for asylum. Not only was that asylum ban found to ‘irreconcilably conflict’ with federal law at the district court level, but the Supreme Court seemingly agreed, declining to reverse the lower court’s injunction.”