Opinion: Depriving Asylum Seekers of Right to Work Would Do Far-Reaching Harm – City Limits

“Employment authorization is not just a bureaucratic document—it is a critical pathway that allows people seeking safety to rebuild their lives.”

Buried in the theatre of the absurd that is recent immigration policy was news of the funding stalemate over ICE in Congress, an ICE agent charged with assault, and that of multiple people either released from detention, or deported—each its own story of heartbreak and injustice.

What many may not have noticed were the litany of articles detailing the massive worker shortage the U.S. is currently experiencing because of the administration’s crackdown on immigration. And now, a proposed federal rule threatens to exacerbate these labor shortages and create unprecedented economic hardship that will have far-reaching implications.

On Feb. 23, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a new rule intended to make it nearly impossible for asylum seekers to apply for an initial work permit. If this new rule goes into effect, individuals would not be permitted to apply for work permits until the government has cleared the backlog of affirmative asylum applications. According to the government’s own estimates, this could take anywhere from 14 to 173 years.

More than creating an unnecessary and unfathomable delay, it would take an already burdensome process even more challenging. The rule proposes to double the waiting period for new work permit applications from six months to a year, make the processing time six times longer (30 days to six months), and even pause applications entirely, all at the whim of government officials. The comment period for this proposed regulation closed last week, all but guaranteeing that it will take effect this year.

Right now, there are roughly 2.3 million adults in the United States legally working while completing the asylum process. Immigrants like Peter, a young man who fled persecution from a large Asian country and found himself struggling to survive in New York City because he didn’t have a work permit and therefore was unable to obtain stable employment. Peter came to us for legal assistance, and obtaining a work permit was a lifeline that effectively changed his life.

If this new rule goes into effect, asylum seekers like Peter would have to go from waiting seven months to obtain a work permit to 18 months. And that’s assuming the process isn’t indefinitely paused for over a century. This is nothing short of punitive as we know people cannot survive without income for that long. We’ve seen this playbook. These changes are not to “reform” the process but are designed to hurt immigrants.

Those in food service, construction, and transportation industries will quickly see that preventing new workers from joining the work force will disrupt production and services for everyday Americans. Without sufficient labor, prices go up, products become unavailable, ultimately forcing small businesses to close. Even more troubling is that this proposed rule will kiss more than $25.7 billion in tax revenue goodbye. That’s the estimated amount that immigrants pay every year in taxes. That lost income that will be felt in every town, city, and state when navigating future budgets. 

While business leaders across the country are launching a coalition to demand that Congress and the White House provide for “hard working immigrants” in the food industry, the government is doing everything it can to ensure that lawful employment is impossible to obtain for these communities. The fact that businesses can’t fill hundreds of thousands of positions in hospitality, or that we’re experiencing the largest agriculture labor shortage in over a decade is of less importance to this administration than finding innovative and insidious ways to drive the immigrant community to desperation and despair.

Without a work permit, vulnerable asylum seekers are often forced to work low paid extra-legal jobs or rely on someone else for income. People like Danny, a young man from Central America who fled an abusive partner and experienced significant exploitation to ensure their financial survival. The work permit that we helped them obtain ensured a steady job that enabled them to leave a dangerous situation by being able to live, eat, and provide for themselves, without relying on an abusive partner, parent, or employer. For many in the immigrant community, notably LGBTQ+ asylum seekers and immigrant survivors of domestic violence, the feeling of personal safety is often intimately tied to their economic independence.  

Here in New York City, it’s no secret that our economy relies heavily on immigrant labor, with foreign-born workers making up 44.3 percent of the labor force. They are crucial to healthcare (especially home health aides), construction, restaurants, and building services. Immigrants hold high shares of jobs in manicure salons, taxi driving, and housekeeping.

Even more than their economic contributions, this proposed rule will have a personal impact. More than one out of every three New Yorkers is an immigrant. Millions more have deep connections with immigrant New Yorkers, as relatives, friends, classmates, co-workers, and neighbors. This proposed policy not only will impact the economic stability of immigrant New Yorkers but will have direct impacts and reverberations felt by all New Yorkers. 

Employment authorization is not just a bureaucratic document—it is a critical pathway that allows people seeking safety to rebuild their lives. For asylum seekers and immigrants, the ability to work means being able to provide for themselves and their families, rather than relying on limited support systems or facing homelessness and poverty. When people can work legally, they are better able to integrate into their communities, care for their children, and plan for the future. Taking away work authorization creates instability, deepens vulnerability, and increases the risk of exploitation.

With little chance of preventing this rule from taking effect, and jeopardizing our communities, we’re left with the question of how to minimize the potential harm. Encourage community members, advocates, and directly impacted individuals to share their stories and submit public comments. Advocate for policies, rules, and lawsuits that will challenge this unjust practice in the hope that by prioritizing stability, fairness, and the ability of all people to live and work with dignity, we can support those most in need.

Amy Leipziger is the project director at the Urban Justice Center’s Free to Be Youth Project.