tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73696429861361212322024-03-14T00:52:34.334-07:00StatelessA blog about statelessness, migration, and refugees.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.comBlogger232125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-25582615638343532502024-01-26T08:23:00.000-08:002024-01-26T08:23:38.357-08:00Donald Trump May Have Just Saved Asylum<p>This week, Donald Trump apparently coerced members of his own party, including senator <a href="https://punchbowl.news/archive/12524-punchbowl-news-am/">Mitch McConnell</a>, into killing a border deal with the Biden administration and Democrats, a deal that would have given Republicans and conservatives much of what they want on border control in exchange for Ukraine funding. The reason Republicans may kill their best chance at closing the US border with Mexico? Because Trump wants to run on "border chaos" in the presidential campaign. </p><p>It probably surprises no one that Trump's only real political goal is to get reelected and that he doesn't really care about the border at all. What is more surprising is that the Republicans might go along with it. They surely realize that Trump would never be able to get such a bill through Congress. Essentially, they are blowing up their only chance to kill asylum in order to, ironically, get Trump reelected so he can not do anything. It's hardly a wise campaign strategy to kill an agreement on the number one issue Republican voters care about, and, of course, we all know that Mitch McConnell hates Trump with the fury of a thousand suns. </p><p>Its also clear, however, that many Republicans don't really want this bill to pass. Trump's forced them to say the quiet part out loud, that they don't see the border as a "crisis" and they certainly don't want to "close" the border or do anything that many conservative voters want. As long as Republicans can't see a way out of this mess they have created for themselves and for the anti-immigrant wing of their party and the electorate, no bill will pass and asylum is safe, thanks to the swift intervention of Donald Trump.<br /></p><p><br /></p>Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-41528492130488314812018-01-01T10:43:00.002-08:002018-01-01T10:43:34.364-08:00What about Stateless Dreamers? An Open Letter to Cory BookerMillions of people world wide are stateless. The current population of stateless people in the US is unknown, but it is likely that the global problem of statelessness is reflected here in the US in micro. As each country is represented by an immigrant population, so the "country" of those without a country must surely be mirrored here. In addition, there are an unknown number of people born in the US who are not registered at birth. High risk groups include indigenous Americans and populations with a high rate of home birth, for example, certain religious groups.<br />
<br />
I am friends with several stateless people in the United States. It's not easy to find stateless people, as many do not know they are stateless and many more are afraid to telegraph their status. Stateless Americans have much in common with the undocumented community, but the situation of stateless Americans is also unique. Many have no pathway to a solution in the US, but stateless Americans also cannot be deported to any country. They are truly in limbo, among the most vulnerable groups.<br />
<br />
One of my stateless friends is on DACA, but she tells me it took her ages to apply, as she was told over and over again by immigration attorneys that she does not qualify. I suspect this is probably the case for many stateless Americans brought to the US as children.<br />
<br />
Cory Booker's office has started an admirable <a href="https://medium.com/americandreamers/about">project</a> on the social media site Medium, highlighting DREAMers and those on DACA. But this open letter urges his office to focus also on the particular issues facing stateless Americans who qualify for DACA. It is also vital to start planning now for how the DREAM Act, when passed (and I say "when" because I believe it will be high on the post-Trump agenda, whichever Democrat gets elected) will affect stateless people and their particular needs.<br />
<br />
If you are a stateless American brought to the US as a child, I urge you to <a href="https://medium.com/americandreamers/about">get in touch</a> with Cory Booker's office and press them to cover your story.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-91511663518349891942017-12-04T14:30:00.001-08:002017-12-04T14:30:47.485-08:00The European Union Endorses the Enslavement of Migrants in Libya<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--h3" id="2a47" name="2a47">
What happens to workers from Africa who are physically blocked from getting to their jobs in Europe? A chilling <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html" href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">CNN report </a>details what happens to people who are unsuccessful in their attempt to cross the Mediterranean and, as a result, have no money to pay for the cost of their voyage. Waste not, want not. Slavery, long a part of north Africa’s history, is the only future for many of the workers who cannot reach the under-the-table jobs in Europe’s capitals. Labor is valuable and many would-be migrants can’t pay back the cost of their transport, so they are sold at auction. Put up a barrier, block the movement of people, goods or capital, and entrepreneurs will find a way to make money anyways.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--h3" name="2a47">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p graf--trailing" id="c457" name="c457">
The European Union has created this situation with their policy of blocking their black and brown workforce, allowing in only a trickle of people, while the rest build up into a giant lake of unwanted labor behind Fortress Europe’s wall. As long as their are jobs in Europe, there will be migrants moving across the desert to fill them. As long as the Italian Navy blocks the boats, there will be destitute workers with no jobs and no way to pay off their smugglers in Libya.</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-53821349075323426382017-12-04T14:29:00.004-08:002017-12-04T14:29:55.801-08:00In Another Blow for Migrant Rights, the US is Leaving Negotiations for a “Global Compact” on Migration<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--h3" id="deeb" name="deeb">
Those of us in refugee affairs have been following the development of the possible Global Compact on Migration, which it is hoped would facilitate global cooperation on the refugee and migration crisis. Today, the Trump administration announced it is leaving the process, essentially saying that whatever the rest of the world decides to do about the migration crises, the US will not be taking part in that decision. As Marc Goldberg at UN Dispatch <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.undispatch.com/trump-administrationpulls-global-compact-migration-no-good-reason/" href="https://www.undispatch.com/trump-administrationpulls-global-compact-migration-no-good-reason/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">points out</a>, it’s a bizarre decision with no upside for the US, but will probably win Trump praise from immigration and anti-UN hardliners, for whom all international cooperation is a plot to undo US “sovereignty.” (Never mind that we are the biggest and richest country, and that as a result, we set most of the policy at these things.)</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--h3" name="deeb">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="a575" name="a575">
Goldberg aptly compares our decision to leave the negotiations over the migration crisis to our decision to leave the Paris Accord. In both cases, it’s like our apartment building caught on fire, and our neighbors pounded on our door to get us to come down the stairwell with them, and we keep saying, “no thanks, we don’t believe in fire.”</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="a575">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="fd52" name="fd52">
Many hoped the negotiations currently underway to cooperate on migration and refugees would result in a binding agreement. Maybe the Trump administration is worried about that, too. Trump’s <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-us-australia-refugee-deal-trump-immigration-2017-8" href="http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-the-us-australia-refugee-deal-trump-immigration-2017-8" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">over the top </a>reaction to the refugee deal between the US and Australia shows that he intends to cut all immigration, no matter how tiny, no matter how humanitarian, no matter how much our allies and neighbors desperately need our help, including the resettlement of refugees, in an attempt to “wall” the US off from the rest of the world.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="fd52">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="ecf9" name="ecf9">
The problem, of course, is that immigration enforcement is hugely expensive, often doesn’t work, and simply leads to the destabilizing of important allies and neighbors. The world exists. It is not “fake news.” Take a look at the strain Lebanon is now under as a result of the huge influx of Syrian refugees. Lebanon is one of our most important allies in the Middle East. Where is this going?</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p graf--trailing" id="caf2" name="caf2">
It’s very typical of Americans to ignore the rest of the world — we have spasms of isolationism every few decades. But if you go on ignoring a fire in your apartment building, like ignoring climate change or the refugee crisis, you’re going to start feeling pretty warm sooner, rather than later. One day you might look up from tweeting and realize that all of your neighbors have exited the building with out you, and the fire is now at your door.</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-12490614914146601872017-12-04T14:29:00.000-08:002017-12-04T14:29:00.383-08:00The Supreme Court Allows the Travel Ban to Go Forward: Because Setting Immigration Policy is Part of what the Government is Supposed to Do<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--h3" id="c0a3" name="c0a3">
Donald Trump ran for President of the United States as an immigration hardliner. He promised his supporters he would crack down on all types of immigration to the fullest extent of the law. Immigration is almost entirely within the purview of the federal government, so promising to crack down in immigration is actually something the President of the United States can promise.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="aa86" name="aa86">
Nevertheless, during the election, multiple people said that a Trump Presidency would not change the status quo very much <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-michaels-checks-balances-trump-20161111-story.html" href="http://beta.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-michaels-checks-balances-trump-20161111-story.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">because of</a> <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?utm_term=.01ddcaa9b00f" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2016/11/10/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump/?utm_term=.01ddcaa9b00f" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">“checks and balances.” </a></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="aa86">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="aa86">
With Republicans in charge of congress, by “checks and balances, they meant that the courts would provide a check on Trump’s most extreme impulses. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what the courts are supposed to do.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="aa86">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="4ad4" name="4ad4">
Most importantly, it shows a dangerous misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court does: settle disputes between Federal Appellate Courts and interpret the Constitution. It is not the Supreme Court’s job to declare a President’s policy to be too extreme or too radical, it’s job is to adjudicate whether or not the Constitution of the prohibits the President from enacting that policy. And the President’s powers on immigration under the Constitution and under Federal law are sweeping.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" id="80cf" name="80cf">
Today, the Supreme Court <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-trump-travel-ban-while-legal-challenges-continue/2017/12/04/486549c0-d5fc-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tidr=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ff7dd2444acf" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-full-enforcement-of-trump-travel-ban-while-legal-challenges-continue/2017/12/04/486549c0-d5fc-11e7-a986-d0a9770d9a3e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tidr=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ff7dd2444acf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">temporary upheld</a> Trump’s revised travel ban <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">while the legal challenges against it proceed in the lower courts</a> (read the decision <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" data-href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120417zr_4gd5.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">here</a>.) This does not mean that the ban will not be overturned as unconstitutional once the two cases against it reach the Supreme Court, merely that the President is given deference to enact laws under the powers which he has been granted by the Constitution until the courts have had an opportunity to weigh the issue. The Constitutionality of the travel ban is very much unclear, but I personally believe it is probably Constitution. The President has broad powers to restrict immigration.</div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p" name="80cf">
<br /></div>
<div class="graf graf--p graf-after--p graf--trailing" id="456d" name="456d">
Trump was hired by American voters to do a job: limit immigration, particularly from Muslim countries, and this is what his travel ban is trying to accomplish. I strenuously disagree with the travel ban. I think it is a moral and political abomination. But we all knew what the stakes were in this election. Voting matters — if <em class="markup--em markup--p-em">you are a US citizen, your vote</em> in 2018 will be the much-needed check on the President’s powers.</div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-69420081597589139582017-10-17T12:53:00.003-07:002017-10-17T12:53:46.225-07:00October 2017 Statelessness RoundupHere is an non-exhaustive list of some of the biggest developments on the topic of statelessness and nationality from around the world:<br />
<br />
<u>Malaysia</u><br />
The Malaysian press continues their extensive coverage of the issue of birth registration, including on the introduction of a late fee for registration. See article <a href="http://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/18236/" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<u>Bangladesh/Myanmar</u><br />
Excom <a href="http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/59d1ec917">side-event</a> on Rohingya refugees. Also, there have been a bunch of articles on <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya/rohingya-refugees-scoff-at-myanmars-assurances-on-going-home-idUSKCN1C80NH">problems</a> with and controversy over repatriation/returns and <a href="https://theglobalobservatory.org/2017/09/could-the-rohingya-crisis-be-a-turning-point-for-guterres/">indications</a> that Guterres may make a major push to resolve the crisis.<br />
<u></u><u></u><br />
<u>Vietnam</u><br />
Cambodia appears poised to <a href="http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/interior-ministry-identifies-70000-improper-citizens-mostly-ethnic-vietnamese">revoke </a>the citizenship of ethnic Vietnamese persons living in Cambodia, according to this<span id="goog_589772897"></span> <a href="http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/vietnam-asks-migrants-rights-be-respected">story.</a><span id="goog_589772898"></span> <br />
<u><br /></u><u>Syria and Iraq</u><br />
<u></u>The enormous problem of stateless children stemming from the wars in Iraq and Syria continues. This <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/07/children-isis-fighters-syria-raqqa-orphans-uncertain-future">article</a> is about potential statelessness amongst the children of ISIS fighters.<br />
<br />
<u>USA</u><br />
The "Nowhere People" exhibit comes to <a href="http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/10/06/nowhere-people-exhibit-stateless-dreamers/">Chicago.</a><br />
<br />
Also, further <a href="https://themigrationist.net/2017/09/08/u-s-supreme-court-cases-highlight-gender-based-discrimination-and-absurdity-in-citizenship-laws/">analysis</a> of recent Supreme Court decision on nationality law.<br />
<br />
<u>Bahrain</u><br />
<a href="https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/10/5/bahraini-shia-pair-jailed-made-stateless-over-iran-ties">Deprivation of citizenship</a> for persons accused of ties to Iran. Unrest in Bahrain continues due to tensions between the Shia majority and the government over alleged Iranian influence.<br />
<br />
<u>Americas generally</u><br />
A recent <a href="http://www.fmreview.org/latinamerica-caribbean/mondelli.html">article</a> on the eradication of statelessness in the Americas.<br />
<u><br /></u>
<u>West Africa generally</u><br />
<u></u>UNHCR has issued its latest <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/world/statelessness-west-africa-newsletter-14-july-september-2017">newsletter</a> on statelessness in W. Africa and the Banjul Action Plan. It notes that Burkina Faso has now acceded to the 1961 Convention.<br />
<br />
<u>Europe generally</u><br />
UNHCR has <a href="https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/avoiding-detention-stateless-persons-unhcrs-new-tool-identification-and-enhanced-protection">unveiled </a>its determination procedures for stateless persons in detention. Also, ENS highlights the <a href="https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/citizenship-sale-cost-stateless-people-can-ill-afford">high cost</a> of nationality in Britain, an issue that resonates in many countries.<br />
<br />
<u>General</u><br />
ISI has released<a href="http://www.institutesi.org/forum/essentials.php"> guidelines</a> on statelessness for development actors.<br />
<br />
A new <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501295">paper</a> has been published in Tilburg Law Review on stateless indigenous peoples.<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-1865220650681421742017-10-02T14:33:00.003-07:002017-10-02T14:33:54.593-07:00et tu, Facebook? Just Like in the Real World, Refugees find only Persecution and Silencing on Social MediaFacebook was created as a place where ordinary people who are divided by space and place can network together online, finding like-minded communities and reaching out to one another. It was supposed to be beautiful, man. And it is, sometimes. Just not if you're a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/us/politics/russia-facebook-election.html" target="_blank">refugee</a>. If you're a refugee, Facebook has turned into yet another place you can go for censorship and abuse. Because nothing amplifies persecution like having it spread all over social media.<br />
<br />
Refugees and immigrants had a terrible year. Globally, protection spaces are shrinking and hostility is rising across the world as more and more people need assistance and a safe place to live. Social media was supposed to help vulnerable people like refugees find one another, link up into networks and access information about services. At least, that seemed to be a realistic goal for social media as a tool for social activism. The reality is that nation-states with axes to grind against individuals can now use social media as a tool to extend the long arm of persecution around the world, as long as the price is right.<br />
<br />
At the same time that Facebook is testifying before the US Congress about <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/are-russias-friends-hiding-on-your-facebook-page/" target="_blank">selling </a>divisive, racist, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee ads in the US, Rohingya activists <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/exclusive-rohingya-activists-say-facebook-silences-them" target="_blank">have</a> <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/45495/rohingya-censorship-demands-greater-transparency-facebook/" target="_blank">argued</a> that Facebook is censoring groups trying to document violence in the Rakine state for "violating community standards." It is unclear what Facebook means by this phrase. <br />
<br />
Apparently, Facebook's policy is to promote content that earns money for Facebook and remove content that does not. As refugees usually don't have a lot of money and can't fake-generate a lot of fake-"likes" to drive advertising, this means that the Facebook world is starting to look more and more like the real world for refugees: a place where refugee voices are silenced. Money talks, and persecutors, not victims, usually have all the money.<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-64904361404519702542017-09-28T13:14:00.003-07:002017-09-28T13:17:51.841-07:00The Trump Administration will now "Protect" Refugees by Persecuting ThemIn what may prove to be one of the most ironic moments of the Trump Administration (though it's early days still), the new guidelines for individual refugee resettlement were leaked today to <a href="https://news.vice.com/story/trump-wants-to-give-priority-to-refugees-for-ability-to-assimilate" target="_blank">VICE </a>news. Among numerous other changes, they contain the following ominous phrase: "PRM and DHS/USCIS will work closely with UNHCR to ensure that, in addition to referrals of refugees with compelling protection needs, referrals may also take into account certain criteria that enhance a refugee's likelihood of successful assimilation and contribution to the United States."<br />
<br />
What does this mean?<br />
<br />
There are three ways someone can be a refugee in the United States. First, they can come to the US and claim asylum here. Second, they can be resettled as an individual referral by UNHCR (or occasionally an NGO or embassy) or third, they can be resettled as part of a group referral.<br />
<br />
Under the current system for individual referrals, UNHCR selects candidates based on their urgent protection needs. Usually, this means that the refugee is facing serious threats to their life or safety in the refugee camp, or they are an unaccompanied minor, or the have an urgent health problem that cannot be addressed in the camp. The decision is made based on the refugee's needs, not the needs of the host state.<br />
<br />
Group referrals are functionally different. For group referrals, UNHCR and member states usually negotiate in order to find the best possible outcome for all parties. Refugee needs are balanced against the priorities of the United States and the burden to host countries. For example, a mass influx of refugees into a single country, like Syrians to Lebanon or Rohingya to Bangladesh, will usually prompt donor countries to take a certain number not only to ensure better treatment for all refugees, but also to share the burden with host states. Group referrals may also be used to end "protracted" refugee situations, where refugees have been stuck in camps for decades with no solution.<br />
<br />
There has already been <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/trump-ending-central-american-minors-program/index.html" target="_blank">reporting</a> on the Trump Administration's decision to end group processing for Central American minors. There has also been<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/refugee-numbers/541101/" target="_blank"> reporting</a> on the potential reduction of the cap to 45,000 places, though this cap must await input from Congress. For comparison, the Obama administration had hoped to increase the program to 110,000 places. Gone is the Obama administration's plans for a reserve of 14,000 places for any unforeseen emergencies.<br />
<br />
Strange language also appears in the group designations for Burmese ethnic minorities in Malaysia (Chin, Mon and others) and Bhutanese in Nepal are to be wrapped up in 2018. What this means, exactly, is not clear, particularly given that UNHCR has cited resettlement needs for over 100,000 people. How resettlement of these groups will interact with the Rohingya refugee crisis is also not clear.<br />
<br />
All in all, given Trump's campaign rhetoric, the document is not really a shock. While it marks a sharp decrease in admissions, this is a power of the President and the Administration is asserting its prerogatives according to how US citizens voted. Resettlement is a voluntary program and so far, Trump has not done anything truly revolutionary, like pull out of the 1951 Convention.<br />
<br />
In both tone and substance, however, the document marks a sharp departure on refugee resettlement policy from that of the Obama administration. Besides the ominous language quoted at the top that makes it sound like State Department officials may become more involved in the selection of individual resettlement cases, the overall tone leaves much to be desired. Gone is any high minded language over the US's responsibilities or references to the <u><a href="https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/262168.pdf" target="_blank">"global refugee crisis."</a> </u>Gone is all discussion of expanding the resettlement program to new countries in an effort to further extend burden sharing.<br />
<u><br /></u>
But every UNHCR resettlement officer and probably many employees at PRM (or those that are still left) are probably wondering the same thing right about now. What does it mean that the US government will prioritize refugees who can "assimilate" into the US? English speakers? Christians? It's not clear, but it is ironic. Refugees have usually fled their countries due to racism, religious persecution and national persecution. <br />
<br />
Now, they will face discrimination in the US resettlement program, discrimination that for the very vulnerable could be dangerous to their health or safety. Other refugees may feel pressure to convert to Christianity in order to qualify for the program. Desperate people will do desperate things. In fact, the more you think about what this sort of coercive policy might do to refugees, the more it begins to look a lot like the very persecution many refugees fled. Ironic.<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-81654531510345427592017-09-22T12:21:00.002-07:002017-09-22T12:21:24.488-07:00Is This The End of Refugee Resettlement?Over the past few years, the refugee resettlement program has come under increasing strain. This week, we saw Trump tell the UN General Assembly that host countries would now have to bare the burden of finding a solution, while floating the possibility of increased monetary aid (though how this fits in with his promise to slash the State Department's budget is unclear.) Basically, the US is not going to participate much in the resettlement program in the future and we certainly aren't going to step forward to take on our fair share of Syrian refugees or anyone else. People should get ready for that.<br />
<br />
Worryingly, apparently <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-09/denmark-suspends-refugee-resettlement-under-un-program" target="_blank">Denmark </a>has now suspended its program as well. The doors are closing on a global solution and it's not clear if there will be any increased funding for host countries. Lebanon and Bangladesh, you are on your own. What will be the result? Probably yet more conflict and more displacement.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-55746783031377887902017-09-12T13:49:00.001-07:002017-09-12T13:50:06.772-07:00Trump Has Tacitly Given the Green Light For Genocide in BurmaFor decades, the Burmese government has denied the right of the Rohingya to Burmese citizenship. The government has systematically subjected the Rohingya Muslim minority to abuse and persecution, driving tens of thousands abroad. Many, many, many reports and condemnations have been issued over the years, yet the Burmese junta had little reason to listen. As a pariah state, there was not much more the international community could do to effect change (without more Chinese pressure, that is.)<br />
<br />
In 2015, it seemed like change had finally come to Burma following the <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977" target="_blank">election</a> of pro-democracy proponent Aung San Suu Kyi. With the change in government, the Obama Administration<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/02/us/politics/obama-lifts-sanctions-myanmar.html" target="_blank"> lifted</a> some of the sanctions on Burma in 2016. Yet in celebrating the beginning of democracy in Burma, the international community glossed over important questions about Burmese identity and nationality. For decades, to be Burmese in the eyes of the government and many Burmese nationals meant belonging to one of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/nov/03/myanmar-casts-minorities-to-margins-citizenship-law-denies-legal-identity" target="_blank">official</a> Burmese ethnic groups listed in the 1982 citizenship law. The Rohingya are not on that list.<br />
<br />
Perhaps predictably, the move towards democracy has not led to greater representation or rights for Burma's many minorities, but no group has suffered severe persecution like the Rohingya. Recently, things have come to a head in the worst wave of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/textbook-example-of-ethnic-cleansing--370000-rohingyas-flood-bangladesh-as-crisis-worsens/2017/09/12/24bf290e-8792-41e9-a769-c79d7326bed0_story.html?utm_term=.45a0f2705760" target="_blank">anti-Rohingya violence</a> perhaps ever seen in Burma. The government stands accused of torching hundreds of villages. You can see some of the photos <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/02/burma-satellite-images-show-massive-fire-destruction" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Suddenly, the world seems to be waking up to the risk of another mass extermination of an entire group of people. In particular, Muslim nations are <a href="http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/rohingya/dubai-ruler-orders-urgent-aid-to-rohingya-refugees-1.2089248" target="_blank">finally</a> taking more notice. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/12/bangladesh-sheikh-hasina-calls-on-myanmar-to-take-back-rohingya-refugees" target="_blank">India, Bangladesh</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/why-the-plight-of-the-rohingyas-is-stirring-a-wave-of-protest-in-pakistan/2017/09/11/ed946aee-96ef-11e7-af6a-6555caaeb8dc_story.html?utm_term=.390d87962f3b" target="_blank">Pakistan</a> are beginning to push back. The Trump administration today released a statement <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/11/white-house-condemns-burma-violence-rohingya-musli/" target="_blank">condemning</a> the violence, but make no mistake, they have also tacitly signaled to the Burmese government that they plan to do nothing about it.<br />
<br />
Even setting aside the <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/09/11/as-myanmar-cracks-down-on-rohingya-washington-asleep-at-the-switch/" target="_blank">gutting</a> of the State Department and the problematic (to say the least) tenure of Rexxon, the real problem is the administration's isolationist stance. The Obama administration built up a considerable amount of leverage by lifting some sanctions on the country, dangling before it not only the possibility of trade, but also economic assistance. As most diplomats know, it's our giant economy, not our nuclear weapons, that give America our international clout and keep us safe. No one can hurt us because we are literally too big to fail. But we are pretty much the only country in this position (along, perhaps, with China) and, as a result, no other country wants to risk our economic wrath through our powerful ability to enact economic sanctions. But the Trump administration doesn't believe in sanctions or in criticizing dictatorial or genocidal regimes. So Burma is free to do whatever it likes without fear of punishment.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, this latest crisis means UNHCR needs yet more money. And where is this money supposed to come from? I'm seriously asking and somebody from the Trump administration needs to answer.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-59831460271931661072017-09-05T07:35:00.001-07:002017-09-05T07:35:55.764-07:00A new article on statelessnes from "the World Weekly"https://www.theworldweekly.com/reader/view/magazine/2017-08-31/statelessness-the-worlds-hidden-catastrophe/10256Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-78914628614061145012017-08-25T12:54:00.004-07:002017-08-25T12:54:29.735-07:00Partition and StatelessnessThe Guardian has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/west-pakistani-families-partition-anniversary-india-1947" target="_blank">published </a>a long piece on statelessness as the result of the partition of Pakistan and India.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-10728741082138036022017-08-25T12:50:00.001-07:002017-08-25T12:50:22.727-07:00Citizenship in the USStatelessness and citizenship issues have been much in the news lately, but usually the US is low on news about these issues. Lately, however, there has been an explosion of issues around citizenship, voting and what Americans call 14th Amendment birthright citizenship.<br />
<br />
This week saw an interesting article from WaPo on the expanding rights of non-citizens in some US states, particularly the right to vote in some local elections, like school board elections. See more <a href="http://here./">here.</a><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/noncitizens-are-gaining-the-right-to-vote-good/2017/08/18/805b86e2-4d3e-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.89d7332337ba" target="_blank">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/noncitizens-are-gaining-the-right-to-vote-good/2017/08/18/805b86e2-4d3e-11e7-9669-250d0b15f83b_story.html?utm_term=.89d7332337ba</a>Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-3337477799507226112017-08-25T12:47:00.003-07:002017-08-25T12:47:15.871-07:00The Pope's Four Points on Migrants and RefugeesWith political leadership sorely lacking on the refugee and migrant crisis, the Pope has issued words of guidance for world leaders and citizens alike: Welcome, Protect, Promote and Integrate. Read more <a href="http://here./">here.</a><a href="https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/08/21/pope-francis-offers-4-points-guide-worlds-response-refugees" target="_blank">https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/08/21/pope-francis-offers-4-points-guide-worlds-response-refugees</a>Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-84860618837546707592017-08-25T12:44:00.003-07:002017-08-25T12:44:55.917-07:00Bedouin in Israel Have Their Nationality RevokedAnyone who followed the issue of Bedouins in the Negev desert in Israel knows that there has long been an argument in that country over their status and rights. While the problem of the status of Bedouin Israelis has many unique characteristics, the Bedouin lack nationality throughout the region. In many cases, their lack of status stems from a wide-spread failure to register Bedouin nomads and former nomads during the colonial and post-colonial period coupled with discrimination against the Bedouin as nomadic "outsiders" lacking ties to any state, despite clear evidence of Bedouin families having long-standing ties to various states in the region, including Israel.<br />
<br />
Now, the Israeli government is <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/.premium-1.808886" target="_blank">apparently stripping</a> many Bedouin of their nationality, often without a hearing, claiming that they were "improperly registered" in the past. In many cases, this argument about registration is over documents from the British Mandate period, before the Israeli nationality law was even passed. As the linked article in Haaretz makes clear, the revocation of nationality is only targeted towards Bedouin Israelis. <br />
<br />
It's to be hoped that litigation on behalf of the families involved can help resolve the issue.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-47312826865773740512017-08-11T11:46:00.000-07:002017-08-11T11:46:04.197-07:00Israeli Court Moves to Denationalize Terror Suspect<a href="http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.805644">http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.805644</a><br />
<br />
In the latest move by a government to denationalize a terrorist suspect, Israel has revoked the citizenship of a man accused of ramming a car into civilians. As the author of the article points out, there are laws on the books in Israel to punish people for committing terrible crimes, just as there are laws in the UK and other countries. It's not clear what denationalization will accomplish, other than to hand off a possibly unstable person to another country. Once again, governments are appealing to emotion and not logic when dealing with these sorts of crimes.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-76522513290101030182017-08-08T08:19:00.000-07:002017-08-08T08:19:00.071-07:00Break out the Skull Measuring Tool: Trump Moves to Restrict Legal ImmigrationThe loss of the 2016 election will perhaps be felt most acutely by immigrants and those related to immigrants, which encompasses an enormous portion of the US population. We lost bigly, folks, we lost bigly.<br />
<br />
While Trump has failed so far to carry out many of his more lackluster campaign promises like health care and tax reform and infrastructure spending, he and his appointees are moving aggressively on their most important campaign promise - restricting immigration. Many people reacted with surprise to learn that legal, as well as illegal, immigration would be targeted under Trump, but really, his views on the matter were very clear during the campaign. The selection of people like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions clearly showed where his priorities lie. The fact that these people are clowns doesn't make their policies any less damaging. Policies targeting immigrants are happening, so people had better stop their hand-wringing and start paying attention.<br />
<br />
In particular, the RAISE act would sharply decrease family unification visas to the US. Family based immigration forms a large part of immigration to the US and is also vital for immigrant assimilation, as people who come here to work are far less likely to stay if they can't bring their families. For work-based visas, young, rich English speakers and geniuses would be given priority and would eliminate country caps that ensure that no one rich country (China) sucks up all the available visas. In an interesting twist, persons who rack up a lot of points wouldn't necessarily have to have a job offer when they arrive. Most ominously, it would make the 50,000 refugee-cap permanent. It also requires that before a green card holder can obtain citizenship, their sponsor must reimburse the government for any government aid.<br />
<br />
Several good reports have come out criticizing nativism. Among them are a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/03/a-quick-simple-way-to-see-how-restricting-legal-immigration-is-anti-growth/?utm_term=.94fdbc376c41" target="_blank">piece</a> in WaPo on the economic costs, the Migration Policy Institution has issued a <a href="http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/raise-act-dramatic-change-family-immigration-less-so-employment-based-system" target="_blank">report</a> breaking down the law's changes, and by the <a href="http://immigrationimpact.com/2017/08/03/legislation-cuts-legal-immigration-half/" target="_blank">Immigration Council.</a><br />
<br />
It's vitally important that we understand what the Trump administration is trying to accomplish with their immigration policies. This is not about the economy. Reducing immigration does not help the economy. This is a fact, like climate change, and we shouldn't waste any time arguing about it. Growing population = growing economy. While targeted immigration restrictions can help Americans in some sectors get jobs, the overall harm to the economy might outweigh such benefits. As the economy shrinks, jobs will disappear, including those "left vacant" by immigrants. <br />
<br />
This policy, like all of Trump's immigration policies, are focused on racial, linguistic and religious engineering. We might as well break out the skull measuring tools and make everyone wait at Ellis Island to have their heads and noses measured before they can enter. Or maybe we can give everyone a <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/puzzle-given-ellis-island-immigrants-test-intelligence-180962779/" target="_blank">jigsaw puzzle</a> to test their ability to do jigsaw puzzles, like "doctors" did on Ellis Island. As yet unanswered: will Stephen Miller be required to take a test, too? Can he do the jigsaw puzzle?<br />
<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-12481668566442132922017-08-08T07:51:00.000-07:002017-08-08T07:51:01.326-07:00Statelessness roundup - July and Aug 2017It's been a busy few months in the world of statelessness research. <a href="http://www.refworld.org/docid/59661b4e4.html?j=2678298&e=heather.jean.alexander@gmail.com&l=2782138_HTML&u=106989434&mid=6192421&jb=0&utm_source=Statelessness+-+Campaign+Update+-+July+2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=heather.jean.alexander@gmail.com&utm_content=+quarterly+%23IBelong+Campaign+Update+July+2017&utm_campaign=" target="_blank">UNHCR's </a>most recent report on the iBelong campaign is out. The Organization of American States (OAS) has put out new legal guidelines on various aspects of ending statelessness. The European Network on Statelessness has launched its report on the detention of stateless persons. And the West African Banjul Plan is now live. Various civil society groups also advocated for more attention to statelessness in front of the European Parliament, including ISI. (A detailed summary is available in the ISI report, linked below.)<br />
<br />
Malaysia is ramping up its program to address the issue of statelessness amongst persons if Indian descent living in Malaysia. If resolved, this would mark a considerable win in the fight against statelessness and resolve one of the open wounds of the colonial period.<br />
<br />
Madagascar, the United States and Sierra Leone have taken a big step into the future by adopting gender-neutral citizenship laws.<br />
<br />
ISI has also released the two latest reports <a href="http://www.institutesi.org/stateless_bulletin_2017-06.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.institutesi.org/stateless_bulletin_2017-07.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. Highlights include info from the recent meeting of academics in NY. The ISI has also provided commentary on several important US Supreme Court cases on gender discrimination in nationality law, the revocation of nationality and the requirements of birth certificates for children born to same-sex couples. It also provides a recap of developments on the Rohingya.<br />
<br />
ISI has collaborated on a new book, "Understanding Statelessness" and a <a href="https://nandosigona.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/withinbeyondcitizenship_introduction.pdf" target="_blank">new book</a> has also come out on citizenship, boundaries and identity.<br />
<br />
The issue of the stateless bidoon in Kuwait drags on with no resolution in sight. In the latest ominous <a href="http://news.kuwaittimes.net/website/government-study-case-bedoons-fake-passports/" target="_blank">development</a>, the government is now planning to "look into" the issue of bidoon who have "obtained fake passports."<br />
<br />
Persons <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-stateless-idUSKBN1A21B7" target="_blank">targeted</a> by the Turkish government and living abroad are at high risk of statelessness, according to ISI. Stripping dissidents of citizenship is increasingly popular with governments all over the world and represents a disturbing return to the nationality policies of governments in the lead-up to WWII. Hannah Arendt would not be pleased. ISI has also highlighted deprivation of nationality by Kazakhstan.<br />
<br />
Ethiopia has <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ethiopia-give-id-cards-rastafarians-long-stateless-48885611" target="_blank">granted</a> ID cards to Jews and Rastafarians in a welcome move that will do much to protect the rights of persecuted minority religions.<br />
<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-66801334700314429682017-07-26T07:11:00.000-07:002017-07-26T07:11:02.064-07:00The Narrative of the "Ungrateful Refugee"Today's Washington Post ran an <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/merkel-welcomed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-refugees-now-some-are-suing-her-government/2017/07/20/2d9e13aa-68a7-11e7-94ab-5b1f0ff459df_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_germanyrefugees-905am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.c303e5d813f3" target="_blank">article</a> about asylum-seekers suing the German government for the backlog, delays and denied claims that have clogged the court system since the crisis began. The title says it all: "In Germany, Merkel welcomed hundreds of thousands, of refugees. Now, many are suing the government."<br />
<br />
Merkel was required by law to accept all refugees trying to enter Germany. The process for determining refugee status can be time consuming and costly, but all litigation is like that. The state spends millions each year defending itself from lawsuits, processing parking tickets, chasing down criminals, maintaining jails and performing a host of administrative and criminal procedures in an attempt to carry out the law. Yet only the costs of processing asylum claims are routinely brought up as somehow unjustified.<br />
<br />
Germany has been granting most Syrian asylum-seekers not refugee status under the 1951 Convention, but something called "subsidiary protection," which is granted to individuals who do not qualify as refugees but who face serious harm in their countries. With such cases, we see the major difference between refugee status in the EU and in Africa, with the latter granting refugee status to all persons fleeing war and "events seriously disturbing public order." Persons denied refugee status have the right to appeal.<br />
<br />
It is not my intention to debate whether or not Syrian asylum-seekers in Germany should be granted asylum or subsidiary protection. Such determinations depend on the individual cases and the circumstances of flight. Importantly, however, many asylum-seekers who appeal their cases appear to be winning, showing that judges are agreeing that refugee status is the most appropriate solution. Germans worried about keeping costs down should urge the government to apply the right standard in the first instance and not waste everyone's time and money forcing Syrian refugees to go through a lengthy appeals process.<br />
<br />
Most disturbingly, articles like this one frame the issue as one of "ungrateful refugees" biting the hand that is trying to feed them, rather than of government bureaucratic incompetency in applying the law and what appears to be a broad attempt to cheat refugees out of their rights. This state of affairs is made all the sadder by the fact that it was Germany's own actions during World War II that brought the Refugee Convention into existence.<br />
<br />
How's about this for a title? "German Government, Historical Impetus Behind Refugee Law, Tries to Cheat Syrian Refugees Out of Their Rights".Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-73407523666863843982017-07-12T08:45:00.000-07:002017-07-12T08:45:49.540-07:00Nationality and Statelessness Monthly Roundup: July 2017Starting this month, I am beginning a monthly roundup of news about nationality, citizenship and statelessness. Here are a few articles from around the world this month:<br />
<br />
In the UK, the debate over EU citizenship <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/10/europe/brexit-eu-nationals/index.html" target="_blank">rages on</a>, with the government's approach coming under scathing criticism, with accusations flying that the proposal would amount to creating a class of "second class" citizens within Britain. <br />
<br />
West Africa has become the first region of the world to <a href="http://reliefweb.int/report/world/statelessness-west-africa-newsletter-13-april-june-2017" target="_blank">adopt</a> a "plan of action" to end statelessness.<br />
<br />
The media in Malaysia <a href="https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/387600" target="_blank">continues</a> its excellent <a href="http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/07/06/stateless-children-outnumber-population-of-perlis-says-dap-mp/" target="_blank">coverage</a> of statelessness in that country.<br />
<br />
More on the <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/petition-for-writ-of-certiorari-filed-in-lin-v-united-states-and-republic-of-china-taiwan-300482961.html" target="_blank">court case</a> in the US on behalf of former Japanese citizens in Taiwan who were <a href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2016/04/06/case-day-lin-v-united-states/" target="_blank">stripped of their citizenship</a> by the Chinese government. The case continues to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.<br />
<br />
The Free Movement blog has an interesting <a href="https://www.freemovement.org.uk/can-a-child-stateless-by-choice-be-registered-as-a-british-citizen/" target="_blank">discussion</a> of a case to determine whether an unregistered child whose parents never sought Indian citizenship for her can be considered "stateless" under UK law such that she is entitled to UK citizenship.<br />
<br />
The Kenyan press continues to <a href="http://www.nation.co.ke/news/How-life-has-change-for-the-Makonde/1056-3987794-53roc4z/" target="_blank">document</a> the experiences of the Makonde community recently granted Kenyan citizenship after decades of statelessness.<br />
<br />
<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-19466417082330792552017-06-29T08:29:00.000-07:002017-06-29T08:29:02.218-07:00The US War on Resettlement?Today, the US State Department issued its <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/us-sets-new-visa-rules-for-6-mainly-muslim-nations-refugees/2017/06/28/b6cd3414-5c70-11e7-aa69-3964a7d55207_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_travelban-1040pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dbdc9d023c49" target="_blank">guidelines</a> to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's travel ban. The Court had <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf" target="_blank">ruled</a> that immigrants from the 6 banned countries and all refugees must now prove a bona fide relationship with the United States to qualify for admission. It was up to the US State Department to define "bona fide" relationship, which they have now <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-29/trump-travel-ban-said-to-take-effect-thursday-evening-u-s-time" target="_blank">done</a> in a communication to embassies. Apparently, only immigrants and refugees who are the close relatives of persons already admitted to the US will be allowed entry to the US. This will shut down all categories of resettlement apart from family reunification. Eventually, if the restrictions remain in place, this would shut the program down completely, as once all of a refugee's
family members are settled in the US, there will be no way to bring over
anyone else.<br />
<br />
Even if the restrictions are only short term, they have completely eliminated human rights as a rationale for resettlement. Instead, UNHCR will now be able to select refugees for resettlement to the US, the world's largest resettlement country, only if they are the close family members presumably
of US citizens and green card holders, (though this remains somewhat
unclear.) There is also some possibility that refugees with urgent
medical needs may be included, though this is also unclear.<br />
<br />
The press coverage of the travel ban has drowned out another disturbing administration initiative, the potential <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/28/politics/refugee-bureau-state-department-dhs/index.html" target="_blank">transfer</a> of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, the State Department entity responsible for resettlement, to the Department of Homeland Security. This represents a dangerous shift of the program's focus away from human rights and towards security. Taken together, these initiatives show a massive shift of the resettlement program away from its human rights focus. Refugee resettlement is now merely another immigration category for people lucky enough to have relatives in the US, it's purpose to assist US citizens and green card holders to be united with their families, rather than to protect the most vulnerable.<br />
<br />
How can this be legal? Unfortunately, under the logic of international law, refugees to be resettled have already been given "international protection" in another country, so there is no obligation for a third country such as the US to accept them. The vulnerability of the resettlement program to politics has long been well known, now we are witnessing it being ruthlessly exploited by the richest country in the world.<br />
<br />
There is yet hope that the US Supreme Court will strike down the travel ban, either for constitutional reasons or as an impermissible restriction on the right of asylum-seekers to gain entry in the US. Each year, for example, hundreds of Iranians flee to the US to claim asylum "in the first instance," meaning that they are coming directly from Iran. It is unclear if refusing to grant a visa to an entire class of asylum seekers qualifies as refoulement, but there are certainly strong arguments to be made that it does, not withstanding case law legalizing the turning back of boats of asylum seekers in international waters. This will be for the Court to decide, but in the meantime, the Trump administration has finally exploited the weakness of the resettlement program.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-86554539336428320162017-05-28T13:06:00.002-07:002017-05-28T13:06:27.202-07:00Refugee Advocates are Losing the War of Ideashttps://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2017/05/12/refugee-advocates-are-losing-the-war-of-ideas (A shorter version of this post appeared on Refugees Deeply)<br />
<br />
Losing the War of Ideas: Will Islamophobia<br />Destroy the Refugee System?<br /><br />1 Expelling Refugees: A Painful History<br />
<br />
In 1939, the US government refused to let the German ocean liner St. Louis<br />dock in Miami, claiming there might be Nazi spies among the over 900 Jewish<br />refugees on board. As President Roosevelt later argued, "(i)t is rather a horrible<br />story, but in some of the other countries that refugees out of Germany have gone<br />to, especially Jewish refugees, they found a number of defnitely proven spies."<br />Many of the S. Louis refugees went on to die in the Holocaust. While there had<br />been isolated cases of refugees spying for Germany, the scale of the threat was<br />enormously over-exaggerated by both the government and the media. Refugee<br />advocates lost control of the narrative and Jewish refugees, rather than Nazi<br />sympathizers, were branded as the threat. The tragedy of refugee history is that<br />moral clarity in hindsight is often juxtaposed with dehumanization and bigotry<br />in the present. The world has a penchant for victim blaming and shaming,<br />particularly when it comes to refugees, and this penchant is now threatening to<br />destroy the entire refugee system.<br />After the war, a committee of the new United Nations met in upstate New<br />York to establish an international system of laws to protect refugees. No more<br />would refugees be subject to the whims of individual governments bowing to<br />political pressure and organized bigotry. Instead, the rule of law would prevent<br />hysteria from overriding justice. Article 33 of the Convention Relating to the<br />Status of Refugees enshrined the principle of non-refoulement, or non-return,<br />of any person to a country where their life or freedom could be at risk. The<br />principle became part of several other international conventions and is part of<br />customary law. In the United States, the principle of non-refoulement, or with-<br />holding of removal, is found in the 1980 Refugee Law. The United Nations High<br />Commissioner for Refugees calls non-refoulement refugee protection's "most es-<br />sential component." By prohibiting refugee expulsions except in limited cases<br />where the individual refugee posed a threat to national security or committed a<br />serious crime, the international refugee regime compels states to make rational<br />and just choices, placing the protection of refugees above politics.<br />
<br />2 The Incredible Shrinking Protection Space<br />
<br />
While international refugee protection was intended to be obligatory, many aspects of the current system, like the refugee resettlement program, are voluntary.<br />The resettlement program evolved as a policy response to mass refugee <br />flows<br />like the Hungarian crisis of 1956, the Cuban refugee crisis of the 1960s and the<br />Vietnamese refugee crisis of the late 1970s. Resettlement caps and targets are<br />at the whim of individual governments. With the passage of the Refugee Act<br />of 1980, resettlement became a permanent, if vulnerable, feature of US immigration policy. In almost all cases, UNHCR selects the refugees for resettlement<br />and uses it for many functions, including protecting refugees, but also as part<br />of \burden sharing" among states. While resettlement countries may use the<br />program as part of their immigration strategy and as part of diplomacy, the<br />UNHCR selection process remains very much oriented towards the protection<br />of individual refugees. The Resettlement Handbook prioritizes only the most<br />vulnerable. Refugees at risk of refoulement or threats to life and freedom re-<br />ceive priority. Nevertheless, refugee resettlement protecting individual refugees<br />doesn't happen in a vacuum. What UNHCR somewhat euphemistically calls<br />"international burden sharing," where rich countries help poor countries by re-<br />settling refugees, decreases the risk of conflicts spreading between states, makes<br />local integration more possible for other refugees and bolsters the entire protection system. The importance of resettlement to global peace and security, as<br />well as the wellbeing of all refugees, cannot be overstated.<br />Yet despite the urgent need for resettlement and its huge importance, the<br />program has been languishing in obscurity for years, ignored by the broader non-<br />pro t, humanitarian and development communities. In 2017, only a fraction of<br />UNHCR's projected global need for over one million resettlement places will<br />be met. The small number of refugees resettled each year and the program's<br />susceptibility to the whims of politics, including selecting refugees from certain<br />countries while ignoring others, only highlights the political, capricious nature of<br />the program. Most refugees live in neighboring states far from donor countries<br />that pay UNHCR's budget and partake in the resettlement program, and many<br />donors resist paying for something they see as politically unpopular. Even before<br />2017, the United States accepted only a small number of Somali and other<br />Muslim refugees for resettlement, numbers which stand in stark contrast to<br />previous resettlement e orts, such as the resettlement of hundreds of thousands<br />of Vietnamese nationals in the early 1980s. This dismal record of resettling<br />refugees from Muslim majority countries has been the case through multiple<br />US led conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and crises in Syria, Yemen, Libya,<br />Somali and other majority-Muslim countries. Yet most Americans have little<br />idea how resettlement helps prevent conflict or improves human rights more<br />generally, despite the program's quiet popularity with faith groups and local<br />charities across the nation.<br />
<br />While the resettlement of Muslim refugees has languished, mired in controversy, there has been a steady and worrying degradation of asylum since 9-11.<br />In the United States, perceived security concerns have led to the employment<br />of abridged asylum interviews, immigration detention, stricter border controls,<br />expedited removal and other policies that limit access to asylum, despite the<br />supposed binding nature of the law. These measures indisputably target Mus-<br />lim refugees. In 1980, the Carter administration foreshadowed today's shrinking<br />asylum space by ordering Iranian students to report to the immigration author-<br />ities during the revolution. After September 11th, the Bush administration put<br />into place a registry system that led to increased deportations for some immi-<br />grants. The deportation of Muslim asylum-seekers to countries mired in war<br />continues. For example, in 2017 the US government deported migrants and<br />rejected asylum-seekers to Somalia. Today, we face a undeniable refugee cri-<br />sis in the Muslim world, yet is an inescapable fact that Muslim refugees are<br />being treated to a worse standard than either Vietnamese refugees or Eastern<br />European refugees. The shrinking protection space and languishing resettle-<br />ment program squeezes the entire system, leaving Muslim refugees in camps for<br />decades in an untenable situation. Into this tinderbox of international failure<br />has been thrown a pair of incendiary court cases, like twin grenades, cases which<br />could trigger the destruction of the entire refugee system.<br />
<br />3 The "National Security" Exception Becomes<br />the Rule<br />
<br />Unlike during the Communist era, when refugees were seen mostly as individ-<br />ual "dissidents" and "defectors," today's refugees are presented as an undistin-<br />guished mass of dangerous Muslims, a group irrevocably infected by the virus of<br />Islamic terrorism. Public discourse and government policy on Muslim refugees<br />has become plagued by the idea that they may be double agents for the very<br />conflicts they are trying to escape, carrying terrorism with them like a virus.<br />The temptation to conflate refugees fleeing terrorism with terrorism itself has<br />proven difficult for the media and governments to resist. This has led to the<br />revival of the argument that refugees as a group pose a danger to host states. As<br />a result of this tautology, governments are now invoking \national security" as<br />grounds to turn back entire nationalities of refugees, threatening the integrity of<br />the refugee system. The economic benefits of managed immigration, the popu-<br />larity of the resettlement program among, particularly, conservative Christians<br />in the US, our binding obligations to the rule of law, and the desperate need for<br />anything that can help Muslim countries resolve conflicts, all have been swept<br />aside, sacrificed on the alter of \national security."<br />The drafters of the 1951 Refugee Convention struggled with the habit of gov-<br />ernments of objecting to anything and everything on the grounds of "national se-<br />curity" and included a "national security" exception to non-refoulement, partly<br />to encourage governments to sign on. A state may exclude or expel a refugee<br />where "...there are reasonable grounds for regarding (the refugee) as a danger<br />to the security of the country in which he is..." The national security exception<br />to Article 33, however, should only be applied in individual cases following a<br />hearing. UNHCR, which attempts to guide interpretation of the Convention,<br />argues that the exception should be applied very narrowly in individual cases.<br />Nevertheless, because there is no established definition for "national security"<br />nor is there a binding procedural standard for determining when it applies, the<br />existence of the national security exception gives states wiggle room to restrict<br />asylum access with potentially devastating consequences. It sits like a Trojan<br />Horse within both the 1951 Refugee Convention and US law.<br />
<br />2017 will see landmark court decisions on government attempts to expand<br />the "national security" exception beyond all meaning in the United States and<br />Kenya, two of the world's most important supporters of the refugee framework.<br />Current government policy would expand the "exception" until it becomes the<br />rule, destroying the refugee system. As the culmination of unprecedented hos-<br />tility to Muslim refugees, these decisions mark a tipping point in the history of<br />refugee law. It is not an overstatement to say they have the potential to de-<br />stroy the entire refugee system, for whither the United States and Kenya, other<br />governments are like to follow. 2017 may one day be looked back upon as a wa-<br />tershed moment in the history of refugee law, when the challenges of protecting<br />refugees in the face of the di use, global "war on terror" finally breaks apart<br />the legal framework. Or, perhaps we might witness the world take the refugee<br />system to the next level, bolstered by lawyers, judges and activists determined<br />to protect refugees from politics and expand the right to asylum. That both<br />court decisions should involve Somali refugees is, perhaps, fitting, as arguably<br />no country has been evoked as public enemy number one in the "global war on<br />terror" more than Somalia.<br />
<br />4 Two Court Cases, Two Continents, One "Global<br />War on Terror": The Case of Somali Refugees<br />
<br />How did we get here, so far away from what the drafters of the Refugee Con-<br />vention intended? The "Global War on Terror" has created a global crisis of<br />fear, mistrust and victim-blaming against Muslim refugees. This crisis of victim<br />blaming has gripped countries from the United States, to France, India, and<br />Kenya, yet perhaps no refugee situation more typifies the global war on Muslim<br />refugees like that of Somali refugees in Dadaab camp. As Americans were fac-<br />ing a stark choice between two alternate visions of immigration, terrorism and<br />security in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, Kenyans were embroiled in their<br />own debate on the same topics. Since the 2013 terrorist attack on a shopping<br />mall in Nairobi by Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group based in Somalia, Kenya has<br />struggled to reconcile its humanitarian responsibilities towards refugees with its<br />fears of terrorism. In May 2016, the Kenyan government announced it was clos-<br />ing Dadaab refugee camp, calling it \a nursery for Al-Shabaab." Dadaab camp<br />in eastern Kenya is the largest in the world, home mostly to Somalis <br />fleeing cyclical violence, terrorism and drought. While there is little evidence refugees<br />from Dadaab have been involved in terrorist attacks in Kenya other than vague<br />government statements that the camp may be used as a \training ground" for<br />militants, the issue of Somali refugees and Islamic terrorism have become linked<br />in the minds of many Kenyans. Underlying the issue of \terrorism," however,<br />is the fact that the Dadaab issue is inexorably linked to larger concerns over<br />Somali immigration and a growing Muslim minority in Kenya.<br />Dadaab camp is the poster child of the failures of the current refugee sys-<br />tem. Kenya has placed pressure on donor states to accept more refugees for<br />resettlement with little success. Meanwhile, it resists the local integration of<br />Somali refugees. This has left Somali refugees in a state of permanent limbo.<br />UNHCR calls the Somali refugee crises one of the most protracted refugee situ-<br />ations in the world, with an entire generation of refugees growing up in camps<br />like Dadaab. Somali refugees face serious protection concerns in Dadaab camp,<br />including crime, sexual violence, mental trauma, and a crushing loss of hope<br />that leads people to risk their lives to migrate elsewhere, including, increas-<br />ingly, the United states. In 2014, the High Commissioner launched a Global<br />Initiative on Somali Refugees in an attempt to galvanize support to resolve the<br />issue, one which has come to dominate east African politics with the looming<br />threat of catastrophic drought.<br />
<br />Like in Kenya, the debate over Somali refugees in the United States has been<br />inevitably colored by fears of Al-Shabaab, though the extent to which the group<br />poses a direct threat to the United States is debatable. While the group has<br />never been directly responsible for a terrorist attack in the United States, the<br />US government has arrested both Somali nationals and US citizens of Somali de-<br />scent for providing material support to the group to carry out terrorism abroad.<br />Al-Shabaab is considered by the US government to be an o -shoot of Al-Qaeda<br />and, as a result, a source of potential terrorism around the world. The United<br />States listed Al-Shabaab as a banned terrorist organization in 2008 and in 2016,<br />the Obama Administration to imposed travel restrictions on certain individu-<br />als with potential links to terrorism. According to Trump's Executive Order,<br />which uses language from the Obama administration's restrictions, "(p)ortions<br />of Somalia have been terrorist safe havens. Al-Shabaab, an al-Qa'ida affi liated<br />terrorist group, has operated in the country for years and continues to plan<br />and mount operations within Somalia and in neighboring countries. Somalia<br />has porous borders, and most countries do not recognize Somali identity doc-<br />uments. The Somali government cooperates with the United States in some<br />counter-terrorism operations but does not have the capacity to sustain military<br />pressure on or to investigate suspected terrorists." Somalia has long been one of<br />the countries most affected by terrorism, but is also seen as one of the countries<br />most responsible for generating terrorism.<br />
<br />The Obama administration agreed to accept some of the most vulnerable<br />Somali refugees for resettlement. In so doing, the administration was tacitly<br />acknowledging that refugee protection is a global system that only functions<br />through international cooperation and that Kenya, a key ally, needs help. It<br />was also acknowledging a broader truth: the warehousing of refugees creates<br />far more problems than it solves. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel put<br />it, speaking of the global refugee crisis more generally, "this is a problem that<br />concerns us all." What she did not say is that we must nd a way to solve<br />this problem, as refugees in camps inevitably give up and leave, creating a need<br />that is propelled by smugglers and criminal gangs, a multi-billion dollar shadow<br />system that rivals legal immigration. As UNHCR more tactfully puts it; "(W)ith<br />countries heavily burdened by hosting large numbers of refugees reluctant to<br />expand possibilities for local integration, resettlement has grown even more<br />vital as a durable solution." What the agency fails to say is that resettlement is<br />a solution to a problem that affects all of us, for every refugee legally resettled<br />robs criminal gangs of money and influence.<br />
<br />Yet the 2016 resettlement quotas were far to small to make a dent Kenya's<br />refugee crisis. In fact, the quotas for resettlement have long been far below<br />the numbers needed to actually resolve anything. Gone are the days of mass<br />resettlement in response to a crisis like the Indochina \boat people" tragedy.<br />Instead of easing the strain on the global immigration system, the resettlement<br />of Muslim refugees became an unexpected and chilling talking point in the US<br />Republican Party primary, fed by the growing Republican conspiracy theory<br />that the President was, himself, a closet Muslim. The resettlement program<br />became part of a deadly narrative, a story whereby the United States was being<br />invaded and controlled by dangerous Muslims and other foreigners. Meanwhile,<br />the Democratic Party was embroiled in a debate over whether the minimum<br />wage should be $12 an hour or $15. The 2016 US election reflected a broader<br />pattern of a single, powerful narrative pitted against confusion, conflicting mes-<br />sages and a lack of focus. The refugee advocacy community has simply lost the<br />war of ideas.<br />
<br />Last year, the situation in Kenya reached a tipping point. Under pressure<br />from the Kenyan government, UNHCR began planning for "voluntary" returns<br />to Somalia in preparation for closing the camp. The announcement produced<br />international condemnation yet few workable solutions. Human Rights Watch,<br />Amnesty International and other groups rushed to note that Somalia remains an<br />extremely dangerous place for civilians and that returns may not be voluntary.<br />The State Department has pointed out that the majority of Somalia is not safe<br />for return without offering a solution. The repatriation of Somali refugees to<br />Somalia would be the product of the closure of the camp and ending of services,<br />government pressure, and cash payments. In short, it would be refoulement.<br />Yet the answer cannot be for Kenya to continue to warehouse Somali refugees<br />in camps for the rest of time.<br />
<br />In February 2017, the Kenyan High Court struck down the government's<br />plan to close Dadaab, citing both Kenyan and international law. The Court<br />explicitly acknowledged Kenya's obligation to uphold non-refoulement, noting<br />that the closure of Dadaab would leave refugees with no option but to return<br />to Somalia. The court employed strong, unequivocal language in striking down<br />the government's plan: <br />
"The application of Article 33(2) requires an individual-<br />ized determination by the country in which the refugee is that he or she comes<br />within one of the two categories provided for under Article 33(2) of the 1951<br />Convention. Thus, this rules out group or generalized application or collective<br />condemnation. Unfortunately, the averment by the Government that the two<br />exceptions discussed herein are applicable and not based on individual consider-<br />ation or determination to each affected refugee but are dangerously generalized<br />in a manner that is a kin to collective punishment...No single arrest or conviction<br />has been cited nor has it been established why a blanket condemnation should<br />be applied to all refugees nor is it clear why the government with its capable and<br />mighty state machinery has not been able to identify any refugees involved in<br />crime and prosecute them instead of mounting a blanket condemnation at the<br />risk of punishing minor children, women and innocent persons." But it is not for<br />courts to suggest solutions to political problems and the Kenyan government is<br />now planning an appeal.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, at almost the same time the Kenyan High Court was handing<br />down its blistering defense of Somali refugees, federal courts in the United States<br />temporarily blocked President Trump's Executive Order banning immigration<br />to the United States from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Somalia,<br />and suspending the resettlement program, including the resettlement of Somali<br />refugees from Dadaab. At the time of writing, the White House is weighing its<br />appeals strategy, with cases proceeding in the 9th and 4th circuits. The matter<br />may proceed to the US Supreme Court. Unlike the Kenyan High Court, the<br />9th Circuit did not mention refugee law, indicating instead that a final decision<br />may rest on US Constitutional law. This is a shame because the case will likely<br />prove critical for the refugee regime. The Executive Order represents a sweeping<br />violation of the principle of non-refoulement. By halting all immigration from<br />Somalia and other majority-Muslim countries, as well as suspending the reset-<br />tlement of Somali and other Muslim refugees, the Trump administration will<br />remove all possibility of asylum and protection for refugees in the United States<br />for these banned nationalities without any recourse to due process or chance<br />of a hearing. Most ominously, however, is the Executive Order's affect on dis-<br />course about Muslim immigrants. The narrative of the \Muslim ban" is that<br />non-Muslim countries are in some sort of end-of-times, global conflict with Mus-<br />lims. It signaling to our allies like Kenya that the US will not only do nothing<br />to help them care for Muslim refugees, but that we have actually declared war<br />on Muslim refugees. Other countries will most likely follow by banning Muslim<br />refugees and asylum-seekers, triggering the collapse of the refugee system.<br />Trump is great at optics, and the optics of the Muslim ban were epic. Take<br />the case of Somali refugees. Overnight, travel from the seven countries was<br />halted along with the resettlement program, with some people actually in midair<br />at the moment the Executive Order was signed. Many commentators have<br />argued this was a \public relations disaster" for Trump, but it played into<br />the narrative that Muslim immigration to the US is a \crisis." The effect on<br />international relations cannot be overestimated. As the Kenyan government<br />watched, over 100 refugees from Somalia who were scheduled to leave Kenya,<br />their country of first asylum, for the United States were blocked from leaving<br />and some were sent back to Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps, where some<br />are now in grave danger. Some Somali refugees slated for US resettlement ended<br />up stuck in temporary transit centers, their long-term destinations unknown.<br />Dadaab is so dangerous, Department of Homeland Security and USCIS staff <br />do not travel to the camp for resettlement interviews. The United States is<br />therefore returning refugees to a place it has deemed too dangerous for its own<br />employees. The message to other countries was heard loud and clear. As the<br />Kenyan government put it, prioritizing security over refugees is now \standard<br />practice worldwide."<br />
<br />5 Losing the War of Ideas<br />
<br />
The current toxic political crisis means refugee advocates must face some tough<br />questions they usually try to avoid. In particular, why do governments and<br />the media vilify Muslim refugees? How can this trend be reversed? These<br />are di cult questions because they hinge less on facts and laws, things refugee<br />lawyers love, and more on narratives and feelings, things we tend to avoid.<br />Refugee advocates have all the facts on their side, yet this seems to make little<br />di erence to the feelings of voters. Strikingly, the US has never suffered a<br />terrorist attack by a refugee. \Radical Islam" in fact accounts for far fewer<br />terrorist attacks in the US than home grown terrorism. The chances of being<br />killed in a terrorist attack in the US are vanishingly small. Yet, over fifty<br />percent of Americans are afraid of being directly affected by a terrorist attack.<br />Meanwhile, the terrifying link between cell phones and the horrendous increase<br />in traffic deaths goes almost unnoticed and unreported. It's easy to blame "the<br />media" for this state of a airs, but the refugee advocacy community must also<br />look to itself and ask why we have so wholly lost control of the narrative. Most<br />crucially, we must learn to speak frankly about how racism and religious hatred<br />drive the narrative on terrorism.<br />The media is now, belatedly, questioning if there is really a causal link<br />between refugee admissions and terrorist attacks in the US. James Hathaway<br />points the US government has not been able to mount a coherent justification of<br />the Executive Order based on the actual risk posed by individual refugees. One<br />might point out that Saudi Arabia, one of the majority-Muslim countries most<br />associated with terrorist attacks in the US, accounts for only a small fraction of<br />asylum applications and is not one of the seven (now six) countries targeted by<br />the ban. Iraq was removed from the ban, arguably because the US military was<br />having trouble explaining it to the Iraqi government, which begs the question of<br />whether the current administration even believes "Islamic terrorism" from any<br />of the banned countries is really a threat to the United States. Finally, the gov-<br />ernment has no evidence for the claim that 300 resettled refugees in the United<br />States are under investigation for connections to terrorism. These are all good<br />points, but they don't matter, because the purpose of the Executive Order isn't<br />to prevent terrorists from entering the US, its to prevent Muslim immigration.<br />When Kenya calls Dadaab camp a \nursery for Al-Shabaab," it really means the<br />camp is an actual nursery for Muslim babies, a future generation who one day<br />will have to be integrated into Kenyan society. As Human Rights First points<br />out that the Executive Order will disproportionately impact Muslim refugees,<br />meaning it will decrease the number of Muslims in the United States. Somalia<br />is the top majority-Muslim asylum country of origin in the United States. Iraq<br />and Somalia were also the top majority-Muslim countries of origin for refugee<br />resettlement to the US, followed closely by Iran, Syria and Sudan. The Trump<br />administration itself tacitly admitted the Executive Order is a "Muslim Ban."<br />The fact that the US and Kenyan governments are now seeking to ban Mus-<br />lims and deport them en masse seems to have taken the advocacy community<br />by surprise. While the international refugee advocacy community slept, the<br />narrative of \Islamic terrorism" took over the conversation. We simply failed<br />to engage in a meaningful way with the terrorism debate, seeing it as outside<br />our purview and ceding the argument. Having lost the war of ideas, we are<br />now facing very real changes to refugee law, both in the US and abroad. The<br />US has now elected a government hostile to Muslims which has unabashedly<br />enacted a Muslim Ban. Official government policy now designates Muslims to<br />be a national security threat. As Human Rights Watch has noted, the negative<br />portrayal of Muslim refugees is a global problem, yet its lack of a basis in fact<br />in the United States is particularly striking, not the least because we are sup-<br />posed to be some sort of \global leader" on refugee rights. Other countries like<br />Kenya are also seeking to ban Muslim immigration and they see nothing but<br />encouragement from the United States.<br />
<br />Unfortunately, our failure to challenge the narrative on \Islamic terrorism"<br />means a likely collateral victim of the crusade against Muslim refugees will be<br />the refugee system itself. Like turning back a boatload of people in mortal<br />danger from the Nazis because there might be a single Nazi hidden on board,<br />current refugee policy elevates blaming the victim to a new level, eliminates<br />any and all due process and circumvents the purpose of the Convention, which<br />was to provide asylum to individuals <br />fleeing persecution from the very sort of<br />terrorism and lawlessness governments now invoke. It creates a sort of terrible<br />circular logic, whereby the persecutory actions of terrorist group are used to<br />justify persecution of their victims. If Kenya and the United States succeed in<br />baring Somali and other Muslim refugees, other countries will likely follow suit,<br />causing the collapse of non-refoulement. The outcome of these two court cases<br />could very well be the destruction of the entire protection system. But it may<br />not be too late to change the narrative. Trump's election has brought forth<br />many painful but necessary discussions among refugee advocates and the larger<br />"progressive" community about, for example, the idea of "open borders," the<br />definition of "terrorism," the usefulness of the United Nations and the European<br />Union and the purpose of international law. Hopefully, this conversation is going<br />somewhere, and fast.<br />Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-76012604155963515272017-05-09T11:19:00.000-07:002017-05-09T11:19:00.070-07:00Refugees and Terrorism: A Response to Mark Krikorian in the National ReviewFor some time now, the Trump administration has been <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-says-300-refugees-are-being-investigated-by-fbi-for-terror-ties/" target="_blank">lobbing around</a> the statistic that 300 resettled refugees are currently under FBI investigation for potential terrorism. Recently, this claim was backed up by <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/05/03/read-the-full-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey-in-which-he-discusses-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.3f52f6280aff" target="_blank">James Comey</a>, the FBI director.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/447423/comey-terror-cases-refugees" target="_blank">Mark Krikorian</a> of the National Review points out that it is impossible to 100% vet refugees before they enter the United States. He states, correctly, that UNHCR and State Department officials cannot guarantee that no refugees have terrorist ties. Of course this is true.<br />
<br />
But it's also beside the point. It's impossible to vet anyone coming into the United States fully. To single out refugees is nonsensical, just as it is nonsensical to single out the nationals of a particular country over another country. The problem with our increasingly interconnected world is that a terrorist attack is as likely to be committed by a US citizen as a UK tourist as a Somali refugee. Easiest of all would be a US citizen living in the US. Why import when you can go local?<br />
<br />
The most ridiculous part of attacking the refugee resettlement program for being a pathway for terrorism is the logistics. Think about it. You're ISIS and you want to commit a terrorist attack in the US. Do you A) contact a US citizen living in the US who is a supporter online, B) send a terrorist on a student visa, which means you have to wait for them to get the visa and then worry about them getting caught or C) recruit a refugee, make them appear really vulnerable so they get selected for the resettlement program, then cross your fingers and hope they get selected for resettlement to the US. Then wait two years for them to get processed. Then hope they don't change their mind once they realize that their family gets to go with them.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean that Trump's travel ban is nonsensical, however. Quite the contrary. By Trump's logic, Muslim refugees have Muslim children, thereby increasing the number of Muslims in the US. In Trump's mind, Muslim = terrorist, so if you keep out Muslims, you keep out the problem. Of course, Trump has yet to come up with a plan for all the white guy terrorism in the US. He probably sees white men as individuals, so when a white man shoots up yet another school, he probably thinks, "that's just that guy. That's not a generalized white guy problem."<br />
<br />
So let's all agree to stop citing pointless statistics about individual refugees and terrorism, because that's not what the Muslim ban is about. And I'd like to see more articles in the National Review about what we're all going to do about angry young white guy terrorism. Maybe all white men between the ages of 15 and 30 could be put in some sort of containment camp until they pass a series of psychological exams to prove that they're not going to shoot up their families or places of work? Just a thought.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-43035062376856814892017-03-07T07:31:00.002-08:002017-03-07T07:31:44.133-08:00Immigration Prison and the Future of Slavery in AmericaA recent Washington Post article <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/05/thousands-of-ice-detainees-claim-they-were-forced-into-labor-a-violation-of-anti-slavery-laws/?utm_term=.67639af0d4ab" target="_blank">describes</a> a lawsuit filed against ICE immigration detention facilities for using imprisoned immigrants as slaves. If true, the irony is truly astounding. Rather than allowing immigrants into the country to fill much needed jobs, we are imprisoning them at great public cost, where they are being used as slaves by unscrupulous companies. According to the lawsuit, prisoners were forced to clean the prison facility at no pay. Of course, if true, this would mean that not only are US taxpayers paying to imprison such families, prisoners are being used to fill jobs at government contracted facilities that could have been filled by Americans.<br />
<br />
One can imagine the future of such a system, where immigrants are imprisoned for the crime of crossing the border for work, but are then used as slaves to pick fruit, wash dishes and mow lawns. Already, ICE has a program that "allows" prisoners to work for $1 a day, less than what the would have earned working without papers in the informal economy, and far less than what they would earn under a voucher program. This is truly the future of American slavery.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7369642986136121232.post-86254611774276280852017-02-21T06:10:00.002-08:002017-02-21T06:10:59.632-08:00Statelessness, Russia and Eastern Europe: Back in the USSR?Many countries in Eastern Europe continue to have large ethnic Russian minorities, including Latvia and Estonia, where ethnic Russians continue to be <a href="https://news.vice.com/story/latvias-non-citizen-policy-leaves-thousands-feeling-stateless" target="_blank">denied</a> citizenship. The breakup of the Soviet Union was one of the largest creators of statelessness in recent memory and statelessness in many Eastern European countries continues because of historic <a href="http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/russia-and-baltics-great-statelessness-game" target="_blank">tensions</a> between those countries and Russia. Since the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia, the issue of belonging for ethnic Russians has taken on a new dimension, with many Eastern European countries worried that ethnic Russian populations could be used as an excuse for invasion, as they were in the <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140502-russia-putin-ukraine-geography-crimea-language/" target="_blank">Ukraine</a>. In 2014, Russia passed a new citizenship law granting Russian citizenship to the Russian-speaking grandchildren of Russian citizens, with potentially wide-ranging <a href="http://www.eurasianet.org/node/68309" target="_blank">effects</a> across the former Soviet Union.<br />
<br />
The entire question of Russian sovereignty and citizenship in Eastern Europe took a dark turn in 2015 and 2016, with the invasion of the Ukraine, and Russian meddling in the US election, which seems to have been partially motivated by a desire to shore up Russian interests in Eastern Europe. We got a window into the Russian government's plan for Ukraine this week, when Trump received an unofficial, back-channel "<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amid-russia-scrutiny-trump-associates-received-informal-ukraine-policy-proposal/2017/02/19/72b0b264-f6eb-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.2037100cffbe" target="_blank">peace deal</a>" from the pro-Russia faction within the Ukraine. The plan relies on Ukrainian voters to decide the future of Ukraine by referendum. As the Washington Post reported, "The Times reported that the proposal discussed at last month’s meeting included a plan to require the withdrawal of Russian forces from Eastern Ukraine. Then Ukrainian voters would decide in a referendum whether Crimea, the territory Russia seized in 2014, would be leased to Russia for a 50-year or a 100-year term."<br />
<br />
This <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-large-russian-populations-2014-3">map </a>shows the dispersion of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. It's not clear from the "peace plan" what portions of Ukraine would be voting in the proposed "referendum", but if limited to the regions annexed by Russia, the outcome would likely be positive for Russia. There are <a href="http://yalibnan.com/2017/02/19/is-russia-plotting-to-annex-eastern-ukraine/">fears</a> that Russian may continue moving into the Ukraine, taking other regions occupied by large percentages of ethnic Russians. Meanwhile, the looming question of President Trump's involvement in the situation remains open. One thing is certain: the question of statelessness, nationality and belonging in the former Eastern Block will continue to be important for some time.Statelessnesshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10007593858929652271noreply@blogger.com0