🇺🇸🗽⚖️🛟 “PROTECTION v. REJECTION” — Professor Denise Gilman On How The “Dick’s Last Resort” Approach To U.S. Asylum Adjudication Has Failed, & How We Would Do Better To “Default To Protect” Rather Than “Stretching To Reject!” 

Professor Denise L. Gilman
Professor Denise L. Gilman
U Tex Law
PHOTO: UT Law

 

https://hq.ssrn.com/Journals/RedirectClick.cfm?url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4376159::dgcid=ejournal_htmlemail_immigration,:refugee:citizenship:law:ejournal_abstractlink&partid=[[PART_ID]]&did=[[DELIVERY_ID]]&eid=[[EMAIL_ID]]

Abstract

This Article posits that the United States treats asylum as exceptional, meaning that asylum is presumptively unavailable and is offered only in rare cases. This exceptionality conceit, combined with an exclusionary apparatus, creates a problematic cycle. The claims of asylum seekers arriving as part of wide-scale refugee flows are discounted, and restrictive policies are adopted to block these claims. When the claims mount anyway, the United States asserts “crisis” and deploys new exclusionary measures. The problems created by the asylum system are not addressed but instead deepen. The Article commends a turn away from policies that have led down the same paths once and again.

The Article first describes the development of the modern U.S. asylum system, highlighting data demonstrating that the system has exceptionality as a basic feature. In doing so, the Article reconsiders an assumption underlying much scholarship that the U.S. asylum system is fundamentally a generous one even if it has sometimes failed to live up to its promise. The Article then establishes that the emphasis on exceptionality has led to an exclusionary asylum process, which mostly takes place in the context of deportation proceedings and layers on additional procedural barriers. Next, the Article documents how the system places genuine refugees in danger while causing violence at the border. Further, embedded bias in the system, resulting from the focus on exceptionality, creates a legitimacy problem. The system discredits commonly-arising claims from neighboring nations, particularly Central America, while favoring asylum seekers from distant nations such as China. The system also violates international human rights and refugee law.

The Article concludes by offering suggestions for more stable, effective, and humane policies to address refugee arrivals in the United States. In addition to eliminating many existing substantive restrictions on asylum, the system should incorporate presumptions of asylum eligibility for applicants from designated nations or situations that are sending significant refugee flows. In addition, the United States should adopt a specialized non-adversarial asylum system for all cases, apart from the deportation system and with genuine independent review of denials of asylum.

******************

Read the complete article at the link.

You’ve “hit the nail on the head,” Denise! Unhappily, those in charge, in both parties, are “wedded” to variants of “rejection theory.” Unless and until that changes, our refugee policies will continue to struggle and fail. 

Indeed, quite discouragingly, the “answer” of the Biden Administration to virulent, racist attacks on refugees and other vulnerable populations, is basically to abandon human rights to the GOP White Nationalists by “killing” refugee and asylum laws, dissing advocates, ignoring experts, and adopting a more or less “randomized,” politicized, extralegal, and restrictionist approach to refugees. 

The “leading” GOP presidential candidates bash and demean refugees, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, women, the poor, on an almost daily basis. When is the last time you heard Biden or any other Administration official aggressively defend the rights of refugees and asylees and tout their value and contributions to America?

It’s pretty much what our approach was in the 1970’s, prior to the Refugee Act of 1980. “Back to the future,” in more ways than one! 

🇺🇸 Due Process Forever!

PWS

03-16-23