U.S. Targets 19 Countries as Europe Hardens Asylum Rules; UN Warns of Global Fallout
- Ahmed Fathi
- 36 minutes ago
- 3 min read
By Ahmed Fathi
UNHQ, New York: The United States has placed citizens from 19 countries under automatic “heightened scrutiny” for asylum, green cards, and other immigration benefits — a decision triggered by the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, DC. One of the guardsmen later died of her injuries.
The accused shooter, a 29-year-old Afghan national, arrived in the U.S. in 2021 and was granted asylum in April 2025. He lives in Washington State and, according to officials, is not cooperating with investigators. The incident ignited an immediate political firestorm and pushed the administration to launch its most sweeping immigration review in years.
Washington insists the new measures are necessary for national security. At the United Nations, however, diplomats see a deeper shift taking place — one that could undermine decades of refugee and human rights norms.
The list includes nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen — countries already struggling with war, repression, or economic collapse.
What the New Scrutiny Means
People from these 19 countries now face longer interviews, expanded background checks, and a higher threshold for approval. USCIS officers have been instructed to treat nationality as a potential negative factor. What sounds like bureaucratic language translates into months — even years — of uncertainty for applicants.
The policy is also retroactive. Even approved asylum and green-card cases may be reopened. Families who believed they had finally found stability face the prospect of renewed questioning. As one UN official put it, “You can’t rebuild your life when the rules keep changing beneath you.”
Compatibility With Refugee and Human Rights Law
The U.S. remains bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, which require individual assessment of claims and prohibit discrimination based on nationality. Blanket assumptions run counter to these principles.
UNHCR guidelines explicitly warn states against “group-based security inferences.” Retroactively reviewing settled cases based on nationality risks violating non-refoulement, the rule forbidding states from sending people back into danger.
Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), any discrimination based on national origin must be strictly necessary and proportionate — a standard that a 19-country list will find difficult to meet.
Europe Is Moving in the Same Direction
The U.S. is not alone. Across Europe, governments are rewriting their asylum and migration policies in ways that mirror Washington’s securitized approach.
In the United Kingdom, major changes to asylum rules have significantly altered the route to citizenship. Refugees may now wait up to 20 years before being eligible to apply for permanent settlement — a stark break from the previous five-year route. Protection has become temporary, conditional, and subject to periodic review.
London has also signed a significant cooperation pact with France to curb small-boat crossings across the English Channel. Under the agreement, people arriving irregularly are returned to France, while the UK takes in an equal number of legally approved asylum seekers. Critics argue the scheme risks bypassing core refugee protections and due process guarantees.
Across the continent, the trend is unmistakable:
Denmark is pushing externalized processing and tighter criteria.
Germany is expanding deportation powers.
Austria remains a leading voice for Europe-wide restrictions.
Italy is tightening maritime rescue rules and accelerating returns.
UN officials see these shifts not as isolated national measures, but as a collective drift toward deterrence-first systems.
The Global Compact vs. the Political Reality
The UN’s Global Compact for Migration encourages states to avoid stigmatization, ensure fairness, and uphold procedural integrity. The measures emerging in the U.S. and Europe move in the opposite direction — just as global displacement has surpassed 120 million people, the highest figure ever recorded.
Washington’s Defense vs. UN Concerns
The administration argues the new measures are a direct response to the DC shooting and rooted in security assessments. “This is about preventing threats, not punishing nationality,” one official said.
At the UN, diplomats remain unconvinced. “If nationality becomes shorthand for danger,” one ambassador told me, “We’re no longer talking about refugee protection. We’re talking about filtering people out.”
A Turning Point for the Global Protection System
Combined, the U.S. directive and Europe’s tightening measures mark a profound shift in how major democracies interpret their humanitarian obligations.
The central question now is whether the international refugee system — built on universal principles — can withstand a world drifting toward suspicion-first policies.
What happens next will shape far more than the fate of the 19 nationalities under scrutiny. It will determine whether global protection norms remain intact — or slowly erode under the weight of political expediency.