Protecting Refugees: an American Commitment and Tradition

By Elisa Massimino
President and CEO

This week marks the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, a landmark piece of legislation that changed the U.S. approach to refugee protection by creating the legal status of asylum and a formal process for resettling refugees from around the world. It affirmed the U.S. commitment to providing refuge to victims of religious, political and other forms of persecution.

Every day at Human Rights First we see up close the ways in which the Refugee Act makes a difference in the lives of individual refugees. There is no more concrete reflection of the Refugee Act’s achievements than seeing refugees and their families find safe haven in the United States.

Watch our video highlighting what this Act meant – including how it helped two of our clients restart their lives.



While the last 30 years has seen much progress in protecting refugees fleeing persecution, we also have seen in our work at Human Rights First where the United States has at times faltered in it its commitment – interdicting Haitians at sea without adequate protection safeguards, allowing political preferences to undermine the objectivity of asylum adjudications in the 1980s, and nearly shutting down the resettlement system in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Particularly in the last fifteen years, a barrage of new laws, policies and legal interpretations have undermined the institution of asylum in the United States and led this country to deny asylum or other protection to victims of persecution. Detention has escalated dramatically, and refugees with well founded fears of persecution are barred from asylum due to a filing deadline that limits access to asylum.

We can do better. Our history as a country of refugees, our tradition as a safe haven and beacon of hope for the persecuted, and our obligations under the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol all tell us we must do better.

Yesterday, on the anniversary of the signing of the act, Human Rights First held a symposium bringing together policymakers and experts in U.S. refugee and asylum law to discuss how we can overcome the current challenges in the U.S. refugee resettlement and asylum systems. It was an inspiring meeting that gave me hope for future reform.

This week we have seen movement: Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Daniel Akaka (D-HI) have introduced the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 (S. 3113), legislation designed to strengthen America's commitment to protecting refugees by repairing many of the most severe problems in the U.S. refugee and asylum systems. Human Rights First commends these Senators for their leadership. You can demonstrate your support for their efforts here.

Millions of Americans are here today because at some point they or their parents – or grandparents – had to flee from oppression or persecution and were either granted asylum or resettled as refugees here in the United States. After reflecting on the last 30 years since this law was passed, we have a lot to be proud of, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Together, we can ensure that our nation lives up to the promise of the Refugee Act.

Protecting Refugees: an anniversary, a new bill, and some recommendations

Yesterday a bill was introduced in the Senate that would strengthen America's commitment to providing safe haven to refugees fleeing persecution. It would repair many of the most severe problems in the U.S. refugee and asylum systems. Take action now - urging your senators to cosponsor the bill.

The introduction of the bill - the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 - comes at an opportune time, s we're celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that set the framework for the U.S. refugee and asylum systems.

Today Human Rights First is hosting a symposium marking the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980 - in Washington D.C. today. Watch it live - and follow our commentary on Twitter.

Learn about the Refugee Act and its impact in our video:



Human Rights First also unveiled a series of key policy reform recommendations for the Obama Administration and Congress to renew U.S. commitment to protecting refugees.

These recommendations aim to prevent the unnecessary and prolonged detention of asylum seekers, end the practice of barring refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of an arbitrary asylum filing deadline, and ensure the protection of refugees at risk of imminent harm by creating a fast-track resettlement process.

Gillibrand, Baldwin Send Letter to Clinton: Help LGBT Refugees

Today Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin took a first step to help LGBT individuals fleeing violence or persecution in Iraq, Iran, and other countries. In a letter to Secretary Clinton, signed by 42 of their colleagues, they urged that a number of measures be implemented to ensure that LGBT refugees are able to seek asylum safely and that when needed their resettlement is expedited.

The press release quotes Human Rights First's Eleanor Acer, director of our Refugee Protection program:

Today, these Members of Congress have presented a comprehensive set of recommendations that will help ensure the protection of individuals who flee persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity only to face further persecution and violence in the countries they have fled to in search of safe refuge. We praise their leadership on this issue, and urge the administration to implement these measures including a fast-track resettlement process for individuals facing serious protection risks.

Read a recent analysis of the plight of LGBT refugees by Human Rights First's Jesse Bernstein, in the Huffington Post.

Senator Gillibrand stated, "it is time for us in Congress to take a strong stand against all hate crimes and persecution - wherever they occur." Human Rights First tracks trends in hate crimes and is working to strengthen and enforce hate crime laws throughout North America, Europe, and Russia, where violent hate crime is on the rise. Join us and see how you can help.

Ugandan Bill is Latest Chapter in Long Story of Fight and Flight for LGBT Protection

By Jesse Bernstein
Senior Associate
Refugee Protection Program

Crossposted from Huffington Post.

From the opinion pages of the world's most influential newspapers to the hallways of high schools in Oregon and beyond, globally people are taking a fresh look at an old problem - the persistent and pervasive discrimination faced by the world's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) population. In certain instances this discrimination pushes LGBT people outside of their national borders in search of asylum in countries which, at least in theory, are supposed to provide a "safe haven."

The most recent chapter in this painful saga is a proposed "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" in Uganda, legislation that would criminalize consensual homosexual behavior and punish by death those accused of this "crime." The Bill would strengthen existing provisions of the penal code which already criminalize same-sex conduct. Such bigoted policies already exist in many parts of the world, a reality that has forced people to become refugees as they flee their home countries in search of safety and security abroad. In Uganda, for example, long before the most recent bill was introduced, rights groups had spent years documenting arbitrary arrests of those who engaged in consensual homosexual conduct. In fact, roughly 80 countries worldwide criminalize homosexuality, and in five of these countries same-sex relations are punishable by death. Even if these laws are not always systematically enforced, they present serious obstacles to LGBT people seeking to enjoy their fundamental rights.

Asylum Processes Drives LGBT People Underground

Often faced with limited resources, LGBT people in danger may have no choice but to flee to countries where homophobia is as pervasive as the environments which they initially fled. For example, millions of civilians have fled the armed conflicts in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and southern Sudan and have sought refuge in places like Uganda and Kenya. Applying for asylum in both countries requires registering with national authorities; yet both countries currently maintain laws which criminalize homosexuality. Now the situation of LGBT people in Uganda is worse in light of proposed new bill. How, then, do we expect vulnerable LGBT refugees to find safe haven and apply for asylum?

In a different region of the world, LGBT refugees in Turkey also face serious discrimination as they navigate the asylum system, which also requires them to register with national authorities. The Helsinki Citizens Assembly (HCA), a local human rights organization based in Istanbul, together with ORAM, recently published a report documenting this serious problem. Though Turkish law does not criminalize homosexuality, it does not explicitly protect LGBT people from discrimination and authorities often use "morality" laws to discriminate against the LGBT community. LGBT people endure extreme levels of violence, including murder, and courts restrict LGBT civil society groups and human rights defenders from operating freely.

Recent actions against the Turkish group Black Pink Triangle Izmir (Siyah Pembe Üçgen Izmir) are a perfect example of this discrimination. The organization is being threatened with closure after a local governor asked the group to remove LGBT references from its charter. When Black Pink Triangle Izmir refused, a motion for closure was issued and remains pending. Click here to take action

At-risk and vulnerable LGBT refugees who have difficulty finding safe haven and applying for asylum often make the difficult decision to remain underground and use invisibility as their only source of protection.

But for those who do choose to seek official refuge, other troubling issues may arise. Trainings, guidelines, and basic conduct used by aid agencies and host governments often do not account for the specific protection concerns of LGBT asylum-seekers. For example, a recent Refugee Law Project documentary, Gender Against Men, highlights the experience of a Congolese refugee man in Uganda who was raped on multiple occasions. After being interviewed by female UN refugee protection officers who were not adequately trained to handle or evaluate male rape cases, he stated, "They believed rape is not done to men. When you explain this problem, people don't listen ... I had the bad luck of being interviewed by female protection officers who were unable to grasp that I was raped." In Turkey, HCA and ORAM report that LGBT refugees, many of whom lack social and familial networks of support, are frequently denied social welfare assistance because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Staff of the UN refugee agency - UNHCR - and Turkish authorities have also reportedly conducted themselves inappropriately with LGBT refugees during refugee status determination and protection interviews.

Interviewers have tended to ask invasive questions about sexual intercourse in an attempt to determine if an applicant is genuinely homosexual, illustrating the lack of knowledge or training on sexual orientation. Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan and Turkey experience similar protection problems. Human Rights Watch recently documented the forced return of LGBT refugees to Iraq on account of their real or perceived sexual orientation. Incidents like these drive all LGBT people further underground, and LGBT refugees are particularly affected due to their uncertain legal status. This situation is dire, but there are glimmers of hope.

Steps in the Right Direction

UNHCR has taken positive first steps toward acknowledging that LGBT refugees face specific protection concerns. In November 2008, UNHCR issued a Guidance Note on Refugee Claims Relating to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. The note highlights issues that must be taken into account when assessing asylum claims based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Moving forward, UNHCR should outline LGBT-sensitive questions to allow for effective and inoffensive assessment of LGBT asylum claims. It should also provide additional protection guidance to ensure its programming is inclusive of LGBT refugees and sexual orientation and gender identity-related training to all relevant staff. In addition, UNHCR should take steps to develop procedures to assist LGBT refugees and other vulnerable individuals who may face imminent risk and require fast-tracked resettlement or even evacuation to a safe third country while refugee status processing takes place. Finally, UNHCR must publicly acknowledge that criminalization of homosexuality - in Uganda or anywhere else in the world - negatively impacts refugees' fundamental human right to seek and enjoy asylum. It also limits their ability to access protection and assistance. This acknowledgement will not only assist in efforts to address homophobia within UNHCR and the broader refugee stakeholder community, but it will also help to stimulate dialogue among States, NGOs and other UN agencies on the need to robustly address this important protection issue, which is clearly of global concern.

Human Rights First knows that these changes will not come easily or quickly, but they are nonetheless worth fighting for. To join in our effort, click here.

Refugees Defined as Terrorists: Human Rights First report featured in Washington Post

Read the Washington Post article featuring our report released yesterday - Denial and Delay - on refugees affected by overbroad terrorism bars in immigration policies.

Senior Counsel and Deputy Director of our Refugee Protection Program, Anwen Hughes, was also interviewed on Power Breakfast from Capitol News Connection this morning.

U.S. antiterrorism laws causing immigration delays for refugeesMore than 18,000 people affected since 2001, report says

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 12, 2009

U.S. antiterrorism laws are being applied so strictly that thousands of refugees who fled persecution in their home countries and appear to pose no threat to the United States have had their asylum and immigration applications denied or indefinitely delayed, according to a report released Wednesday.

The study, by Human Rights First, a nonpartisan organization based in New York and Washington, documented cases in which people have been inexplicably labeled terrorists.
Sachin Karmakar, a Bangladeshi advocate for the rights of religious minorities, was recently granted asylum after facing political and religious harassment. But his application for permanent residency faces indefinite delay because he took part in his nation's successful struggle for independence in 1971.

A teenage girl who was forced to become a child soldier at 12 in the Democratic Republic of Congo and who faces threats for speaking out against her captors has had her asylum application snagged on the grounds that during the period she was kidnapped, she was a member of a terrorist group.

A refugee from Burundi, whom Human Rights First identified only by his first name, Louis, was detained for 20 months, although an immigration judge thought he qualified for asylum because he had provided "material support" to a terrorist organization when an armed rebel group robbed him of $4 and his lunch.

The report found that more than 18,000 refugees and asylum-seekers have been affected since 2001. Of those, at least 7,500 cases remain unresolved. Most involve people already in the United States who have filed for permanent residency or are trying to bring over family members. The Department of Homeland Security has placed their cases on indefinite hold rather than deporting those involved.

However, an undetermined number of people in similar circumstances who, for technical reasons, are pursuing their cases in immigration courts are at risk of being deported.

The report's author, Anwen Hughes, found that efforts by Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations to address the issue by creating a waiver system have moved at a glacial pace and continue to leave out huge categories of immigrants.

"It's been a very slow and unworkable process," Hughes said. Meanwhile, she said, "for a lot of people, the delay is not harmless. We have clients who are here but whose wives or children are stranded in very difficult, dangerous situations."

Brandon Prelogar, special adviser for refugee and asylum affairs in the Department of Homeland Security, is scheduled to speak about the issue on a panel in Washington on Thursday. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The current situation is rooted in legal provisions dating to 1990. However, the Patriot Act of 2001 considerably expanded the scope of those affected by barring entry to refugees and asylum-seekers who were supporters not only of terrorist groups designated or listed by the State Department but also of "undesignated terrorist organizations." The term can be applied to almost anyone who has used force in self-defense against a military regime that does not permit peaceful opposition.

Immigration officials have broadened the provision even further by applying it retroactively to organizations that no longer exist or that renounced violence decades ago.

Those caught in the net have included members of Afghan militias that fought against the Soviet invasion with U.S. support; groups that fought the ruling military junta in Burma; virtually every Ethiopian and Eritrean political party past and present; the South Sudanese armed opposition movement that, after years of civil war, is the ruling party of an autonomous area; and the main democratic opposition party in Zimbabwe, whose leader has been praised by President Obama for his courage in standing up to that nation's strongman.

Although the government has offered waivers in some cases, the law continues to entangle even people who engaged in nonviolent activities on behalf of undesignated terrorist organizations -- such as giving speeches, distributing fliers or offering medical care -- or who provided minimal contributions, such as taking food to a relative in jail.

Hughes said that other immigration laws prohibit entry to immigrants who have violated human rights or are a danger to the United States. She said she hopes the report will persuade Congress to remove the "undesignated terrorist organization" provision from the law.

Legitimate Refugees Being Redefined as "Terrorists"

Since 2001, U.S. immigration policy changes intended to protect the United States from terrorists are hurting thousands of legitimate refugees who pose no threat to the United States. A new Human Rights First report, Denial and Delay, offers a series of recommendations to fix this serious problem. Read our press release.

At the heart of this report are the stories of innocent men, women and children whose paths to asylum, permanent residence, or family reunification have been blocked. Their stories underscore the need for swift and comprehensive action to fix the overly broad immigration provisions that were intended to protect the United States from terrorists, but have instead been applied to, among others, peaceful political activists, children abducted by rebel armies and forced into combat, doctors who provided medical care to wounded people in accordance with the Hippocratic oath, and those who fought against the armies of repressive governments in their home countries, some of whom fought alongside U.S. forces.

• A young man from South Sudan who was resettled in the United States as a refugee after escaping from a Sudanese rebel army who had abducted him as a child and held him for a month at a training camp was denied permanent residence a year and a half ago on the grounds that he had "received military-type training" from a ‘terrorist organization." His case was later reopened but remains on hold.
• A young girl kidnapped at age 12 by a rebel group in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, used as a child soldier, and later threatened for advocating against the use of children in armed conflict, has been unable to receive a grant of asylum, as her application has been on hold for over a year because she was forced to take part in armed conflict as a child.
• A man who was granted asylum after fleeing persecution in Afghanistan over 20 years ago has yet to be granted permanent residence because he carried supplies as a child for a mujahidin group fighting the Soviet invasion in the 1980’s. This has been deemed "material support to a terrorist organization" under the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act. The mujahidin group in question dissolved years ago, and its former leaders have been key U.S. allies in post-Taliban Afghanistan.
• The asylum application of a woman from Ethiopia has been on hold for over three years because she took food to her son when he was arbitrarily detained for political reasons in a jail where prisoners were not fed. The son was involved in the political wing of a group DHS considers to be a "Tier III terrorist organization." But the mother was not, nor had she ever supported the group in any tangible way.
• A refugee from Burundi was detained for over 20 months in a succession of county jails because the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the immigration judge who decided his case took the position that he had provided "material support" to a rebel group when armed rebels robbed him of four dollars and his lunch.
• An Oromo woman from Ethiopia was granted asylum several years ago based on the persecution she suffered there due to her peaceful activities as a member of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). For those activities she was jailed without charges, beaten, whipped, and stomped on. She was also raped by one of her interrogators. She believes it was as a result of this rape that she became infected with HIV. In early 2008, this woman was denied permanent residence based on the same political activities she had described in her application for asylum. Her daughter, still a minor, received a denial letter stating: "You are he child of an inadmissible alien. For that reason, you are inadmissible . . . " The family’s applications were later reopened, but remain on hold a year and a half later.
• A refugee from Somalia has been denied asylum, and has been held for over a year in an immigration jail, because militants who kidnapped him forced him to stand in the middle of a road holding a gun in his hands for a little over a day. This young man had never held a gun in his life and does not know if the one he was given even loaded; he only took it after another captive, a cousin of his who refused to do the same, was shot in front of him. Nothing happened during the hours he stood in the road. This young man is not sure what the point of his presence there was, but believes that his captors were using him as a human decoy, to be an easy target for enemy gunfire in the event of any fighting. The abuse that he suffered has been deemed "material support" to the armed group that kidnapped him.
• A mother from Cameroon was granted asylum based on her peaceful political activism for the rights of Cameroon’s English-speaking minority. Her petition to bring her children to join her in the U.S. was placed on hold based on DHS’s determination that the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) should be considered a "Tier III" group. By the time DHS indicated it was reconsidering its assessment of the SCNC, one of her children had died of illness.
• A Sri Lankan refugee who paid ransom to his own kidnappers still has not received a waiver of the "material support" bar after over four years in immigration proceedings. As a result he has remained separated from his wife even as conditions in their home country deteriorated dramatically. He himself spent the first two and a half years of his time in the United States in immigration detention, and now, two years after his release from those jail-like conditions, is still forced to wear a large, uncomfortable, and humiliating ankle bracelet.
• An Ethiopian father of five who has been living in the United States for six years and who was granted asylum by the immigration court over three years ago has been jailed for over four months, after the decision to grant him asylum was reversed based on a later Board of Immigration Appeals decision that applied the immigration law’s overly broad definition of a "Tier III terrorist organization." The immigration judge, upon reconsidering his case, found that this man, whose own political activities were peaceful, had suffered torture in Ethiopia, that he would face a probability of further torture if he were deported there, and that he was eligible for asylum but for the "material support" bar. But there is no process in place to consider people in his situation for "waivers" of the material support bar if their cases are in immigration court proceedings, and he remains in immigration custody.

Read more about how we can help these victims of overbroad immigration policies in the report and its summary.

In support of detention reform: interesting read in the Miami Herald

Great opinion piece in the Miami Herald this weekend by the vice chairs of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom on on detention of asylum seekers and recent legislation introduced in the Senate.

Human Rights First spearheaded a campaign to thank the sponsors of the two bills, and to urge other Senators to support it. Take action today!

To learn more, read an earlier blogpost on USCIRF recommendations, or Human Rights First's report issued earlier this year on unjust detention of asylum seekers.

Necessary Reforms for Asylum Seekers

Help urge necessary reforms for unjustly detained asylum seekers - write your senators, and read more about two new Senate bills in the Huffington Post.

Challenges faced by Iraqi Refugees

A great article in today's New York Times highlights the challenges faced by Iraqi refugees resettled in the United States.

It refers to the special immigrant visa and refugee programs designed to help US-affiliated Iraqis facing danger in Iraq to come to the United States (the route by which most of the individuals in the article got here):

For years after the American invasion of Iraq, thousands of Iraqis clamored
for admission to the United States and found the door all but closed — until the
government reacted to widespread criticism in 2007 by making it easier for more
to enter with special visas or as refugees.

Human Rights First has been monitoring these programs, and we issued a report in April including assessments and recommendations. Read more about our Lifeline for Iraqi Refugees project.

Great News for Battered Women Seeking Asylum

New paths have opened for abused women seeking asylum in the United States. Read more in a New York Times article today.

Art Spiegelman cartoon in Washington Post cites Human Rights First report

Check out this Art Spiegelman cartoon in the Washington Post on refugees. It cites a recent Human Rights First report on the detention of asylum seekers.

In this visual commentary, Spiegelman uses the familiar character from his graphic novel, Maus, to look back on how we treated refugees in 1939 – notably the refusal of the U.S. to grant entry to 900 Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. Spiegelman connects this to the present with a compelling visual - a "free orange jumpsuits and handcuffs" sign next to the Statue of Liberty - and a reference to our report on detention conditions for refugees seeking asylum in the United States.