Is everyone in the U.K. and Bangladesh now entitled to asylum in the U.S.?

Politicians from both parties say that they want to “control” the U.S. border, but nobody ever proposes changing U.S. law to eliminate the right to claim asylum. There are minor differences between politicians, e.g., “Biden administration reverses Trump-era asylum policies” (Politico, 2021), in which Joe Biden opened the door to people who claimed to have been a victim of domestic violence 10,000 miles away (good luck disproving one of those contentions!). But nobody has been willing to say “The world is too big, too crowded, and too connected for us to continue to offer this” or “We are shutting down asylum because it is impossible to build a cohesive society among people who have nothing in common other than they didn’t like where they used to live.”

Given the recent unrest in the U.K. and Bangladesh, I’m wondering if 100 percent of those countries’ populations could show up in the U.S. and claim asylum. Their fear of violence would certainly seem credible based on video clips. For example, “UK riots live: arrests pass 400 as police prepare for further riots; man in serious condition after suspected hate crime” (Guardian):

Wes Streeting told PA he condemned the “mindless thuggery” seen in the rioting and said that the government “will not tolerate” the continuation of violence that has spread through towns and cities across England over the last week.

Kenya and the United Arab Emirates have also warned their citizens in the UK to steer clear of the violent protests in England.

In an advisory issued on Tuesday, Kenya’s high commission in London said it was closely monitoring the unrest which it said was “primarily driven by far right and anti immigrant groups”

It added: “The violence has flared up across various towns and cities in the United Kingdom. Kenyans residing in or travelling to the United Kingdom are urged to stay away from the protest areas and should remain vigilant.

“Furthermore, the [UAE ministry of foreign affairs] warns UAE nationals against visiting areas witnessing riots and protests and to avoid crowded areas. UAE citizens must adhere to the warnings issued by the UAE Embassy in London and comply with all safety instructions.

The U.K. is now considered too violent by Nigerian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Indian, and Australian standards (CNBC). Why aren’t these determinations sufficient to support an asylum claim here in the U.S.?

(What I find most surprising about the U.K. discord is the arrogance of the London-based elites. A typical outcome of a multi-ethic multi-religious society is civil war. Recent examples include Lebanon, Rwanda, Sudan, and various Eastern European countries. Why did the folks who set up the current UK imagine that it would be different if they set up a multi-ethnic multi-religious society in the British Isles?)

From the Daily Mail, for example:

The U.K. Prime Minister has threatened to imprison anyone who expresses ideas contrary to the government’s point of view on the merits of low-skill immigration (Independent; “Anyone who stokes this violence, whether on the internet or in person, can be prosecuted and face prison.” (“stokes this violence” to be interpreted by the government, of course!)). The civil unrest is geographically widespread within the U.K. (NYT):

Bangladesh, 2021: “Bangladesh’s Hindus living in fear following mob attacks” (BBC). If their fear was “credible” (and the BBC certainly seemed to think so) then perhaps Bangladeshi Hindus were entitled to US/UK asylum no later than 2021. The U.S. government now says that Bangladesh is too dangerous for anyone, regardless of religious affiliation: “US urges its citizens not to travel to Bangladesh” (Deccan Herald, August 6, 2024).

Bangladesh has a population of 175 million. The U.K. has a population of around 70 million, so that’s roughly 245 million people who gained the right (under our asylum laws) to become U.S. residents/citizens in just the past week.