The End of Asylum as We Know It – Part II

by Jason Dzubow

Last time, I wrote about the influx of credible fear applicants and how this is straining the asylum system all across the U.S. Since then, I’ve communicated with attorneys in different parts of the country, and they are confirming that Asylum Offices are interviewing very few asylum applicants anywhere. Instead, they are focusing on credible fear interviews. This means that applicants (including many of my clients) are stuck in what appears to be an indefinite limbo. Thus, the question: Is this the end of the asylum system as we know it?

I have never been accused of being an optimist, but I think the pretty clear answer here is “no.” Or, maybe more accurately, “no, but…” Here’s why:

"Don't worry. The Asylum Office will get to your case before you're my age. Probably."
“Don’t worry. The Asylum Office will get to your case before you’re my age. Probably.”

First, the Asylum Offices are in the process of hiring significant numbers of new officers. It takes time to train the new hires, but even so, we should start seeing their impact within the next six months. In addition, the rumors I’ve been hearing indicate that the Asylum Offices expect to begin shifting resources back to asylum relatively soon (I’ve heard various dates, including October 2013 and January 2014).

Second, the influx at the border will eventually slow down. If my theory (discussed in the prior posting) is correct and the new arrivals are being drawn here by the possibility of immigration reform, that “pull” factor will eventually go away. Either reform will pass or it will be killed by House Republicans. Once the issue is resolved, the added incentives it creates will likely disappear.

Third, and possibly most important, asylum is the law of the land, and there is nothing on the table to change that. Although there are certainly people and groups who would like to curtail or eliminate the asylum program, there really is no organized movement to change the law.

All that being said, I don’t expect that the current problems signal the end of asylum as we know it. However (and here’s the “no, but…” part), I suspect that the current problems will lead to a “new normal” in the asylum system. I also suspect that this new normal will not be as good as the old normal.

For one thing, there is some (disputed) evidence that aliens arriving at the border are becoming more sophisticated about making credible fear claims. Thus, the new normal might involve more resources devoted to credible fear interviews and less devoted to asylum cases (since Asylum Officers currently adjudicate both types of cases). Most likely, since many credible fear applicants are detained (at government expense), DHS will do the fiscally responsible thing and prioritize the credible fear cases. This could lead to increased waiting times for asylum seekers.

In addition, even if the credible fear caseload were resolved today, there would still be a large backlog of pending asylum cases to work through. Assuming no further disruptions, it will probably take years to interview and decide all the backlogged cases. And of course, new cases are coming in all the time.

Also, the world situation has been conspiring to increase the number of people seeking asylum in the U.S. Violence in Mexico is ever on the increase. Our disengagement from Iraq and Afghanistan has caused many people who worked and fought with us to flee for their lives. War in Syria and trouble in Egypt have created new refugee flows.

Finally, legislative and attorney-driven changes in the law have expanded the categories of people eligible for asylum–these days, asylum can be granted to victims of forced family planning, victims of FGM and domestic violence, people persecuted due to their sexual orientation, and people subject to forced marriage. I believe most of these changes are positive and life-saving, but when the number of people eligible for asylum expands, the number of people applying for asylum will likely go up. This further burdens the system. 

All these factors point to a future where asylum cases are adjudicated more slowly than before. So while I don’t believe we are witnessing the end of asylum as we know it, I do think the new normal will be a more difficult environment for people seeking asylum in our country. In the third part of this series, I will discuss some policy responses to this new situation.

Continue reading

2 Comments

The End of Asylum as We Know It?

by Jason Dzubow

Last time, I wrote about the Dream 9–nine Dream Act activists who were detained at the border when they tried to enter the U.S. without permission. They were released from detention after DHS determined that they had a credible fear of persecution in their country of nationality, Mexico. The burden of proof for determining whether an alien has a credible fear of persecution is relatively low (lower than the burden of proof to receive asylum). Essentially, if they tell the Asylum Officer that they fear persecution in their home country based on race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion, they will “pass” the interview and, very likely, be released from custody with an order to appear before an Immigration Judge who will later decide their asylum claim. The danger is that aliens who can legitimately (or fraudulently) show a credible fear of persecution, but who have little chance of receiving asylum, will overwhelm the system. That has not really been a major problem in the past. But as Don Ameche says, “Things Change.”

Here are some recent statistics from the Department of Homeland Security:

Fiscal Year

Number of Credible Fear Cases Completed

2009

5,523

2010

8,926

2011

11,716

2012

13,607

2013

22,775

So you can see that over the last several years, the number of credible fear cases has been steadily rising, but this year, FY 2013, there has been a significant increase (and remember that FY 2013 is not yet done–these statistics only cover the first three quarters of the year). The numbers look even more dramatic when we look at FY 2013 month by month:

Month in FY 2013

Number of Credible Fear Cases Completed

October

1,596

November

1,242

December

1,603

January

1,795

February

1,921

March

2,139

April

3,124

May

3,336

June

3,776

Comparing October to June (the most recent month where statistics are available), you can see that the monthly numbers have more than doubled. While this is pretty dramatic, remember that these numbers are for cases completed; not for new cases. It seems that DHS has shifted resources to the credible fear arena, so it is certainly possible that some of the increase is explained by DHS completing more cases. Nevertheless, something is clearly going on. So what is it?

It seems the system is one wafer thin mi(gra)nt away from bursting.
It seems the system is one wafer thin mi(gra)nt away from bursting.

The most obvious explanation (and one that other commentators and I have discussed before) is that escalating violence in Mexico is driving people to the U.S. But this appears not to be the case. If you look at the top five source countries for credible fear applicants, Mexico has been consistently either number 4 or number 5, and for the last three months (April to June), it has dropped off the list. A recent report from Fox News claims that Mexicans are crossing in large numbers and claiming that they have a credible fear of persecution. While Fox is not always the most reliable source (and their report has been called into question), the report is from last week, and so we won’t have the DHS statistics for a couple months. It would not be too surprising if violence in Mexico is one reason for the increasing number of credible fear cases, but–at least based on the statistical data we have now–that does not seem to be a factor.

Another, more likely, explanation is that all the talk of immigration reform is spurring people to come to the U.S. in the hope of taking advantage of any “amnesty.” The smugglers who encourage people to come illegally to the United States are not stupid. My guess is that they are convincing their “clientele” that anyone who reaches our country prior to the reform will obtain residency. This is almost certainly false (even assuming that some type of bill passes), but that does not stop unscrupulous smugglers from using the immigration reform debate as a selling point. And why not? We are already seeing organizations in the U.S. trying to make money before the reform has even passed (check out this website, which purports to know what the reform will be, what the fees will be, and will charge you a mere $3,000.00 + $2,500.00 in fees to Get Started Now!).

Further evidence that smugglers are driving the increase in arrivals can be found by examining the source countries. For FY 2013, the top three source countries were El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The numbers from all those countries have increased significantly from October 2012 to June 2013: El Salvador went from 586 per month to 1,410 per month, Honduras went from 435 to 815, and Guatemala went from 308 to 606. Another country, India, did not appear on the top five list until March, when it debuted at number 4 with 174 credible fear interviews. By June, the last month when data is available, India had moved to the number 3 spot, with 741 arrivals (AILA members can see all these stats here). Compare this to FY 2012, when a grand total of 377 Indian nationals were granted asylum. To me, the sudden surge from multiple countries indicates that “pull” factors (i.e., the immigration reform debate) are playing a larger role than “push” factors (problems in the source countries). 

The increasing number of people arriving in the United States and expressing a credible fear of persecution is straining the entire asylum system (the same officers who adjudicate asylum cases also do credible fear interviews). At my local Asylum Office (Arlington, VA), for example, the interview process has basically ground to a halt.  I have over 25 asylum seekers waiting for interviews, and only one case scheduled for an interview (which was set for Rosh HaShana–thanks a lot, ZAR). So, is this the end of the U.S. asylum system as we know it? I will discuss that in the next posting.

Continue reading

8 Comments

The “Dream 9,” and the Use and Mis-use of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

If you’re at all following the current debate about immigration reform, you are probably familiar with the Dream 9. The LA Times provides a neat (and mostly accurate) summary of their case:

Last month, the five women and four men, who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, staged an unconventional and risky protest at the U.S.-Mexico border to spotlight the thousands of people deported under the Obama administration. [Three of the activists left the U.S. recently. They returned with six others who had either left voluntarily or been deported.]
 
When the Dream 9 — named for the Dream Act, which would provide such immigrants a path to legalization — attempted to reenter the U.S. at the Nogales, Ariz., port of entry on July 22, they were arrested. They had been in federal custody since.

On Tuesday [August 6], immigration asylum officers found that all nine had credible fear of persecution or torture in their birth country [Mexico] and could therefore not be immediately removed.

The Dream 9 (minus one): "Mr. Obama - Tear down this wall, a bit."
The Dream 9 (minus one): “Mr. Obama – Tear down this wall, a bit.”

All nine were released, but must appear before an Immigration Judge, who will determine whether they are eligible for asylum. Such cases routinely take two years or more, and the nine men and women will be allowed to remain in the United States while their cases are pending. 

Among immigration advocates and attorneys, there is a heated–and not entirely civil–debate about the effectiveness of the Dreamers’ protest. But in this post, I am more interested in how the Dream 9 used the asylum law to avoid deportation and obtain release from detention. Here’s more from the LA Times:

Some of the Dream 9 are petitioning for asylum, saying that they have family members who have been killed and face death threats themselves.

However, many in the Dream 9 claim they should be granted asylum because they belong to a particular group of people — that they are singled out and persecuted in Mexico because they have lived most of their lives in the U.S. They could become targets for criminal organizations that see them as easy prey for extortion and violence, they claim.

Of course, I know almost nothing about the activists’ asylum claims (and no, that won’t stop me from commenting about them), but given the above information, it sounds like their claims are barely cognizable. Not that that necessarily should stop them from seeking asylum, especially where there is no other option. I’ve litigated many cases that seemed weak, and others that were nearly hopeless, and we managed to win a good number of them. While all that is great for my clients who received asylum and hopefully for the Dream 9, it’s not so great for “the system.”

Essentially what is happening with the Dream 9–and with many others arriving at our Southern border–is this: They reach the border, surrender or get caught, and then express a fear of return to their home country. DHS detains them and schedules them for a credible fear interview. At the interview, an Asylum Officer asks the alien about her case. If she expresses a fear of return based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, she “passes” the interview, and is then placed into removal proceedings where an Immigration Judge will (eventually) make a decision in her case. Many aliens will be released from detention while their cases are pending.

While the theory behind the credible fear interview is sound (screening out meritless asylum claims), the low threshold allows knowledgeable applicants to game the system, pass the interview, and–most likely–be released from detention. Probably the only reason that the system is not completely overwhelmed is because most aliens arriving at the border are not knowledgeable about how to frame their asylum claim in order to pass the credible fear interview. And, of course, almost none of the arriving aliens are represented by attorneys (the Dream 9 are represented by a lawyer, but I do not know whether they received legal advice prior to their credible fear interviews).

This all begs the question: Does the credible fear interview system still work? The problem is complicated by the fact that the number of people arriving at the border has increased dramatically over the last few months and the fact that the new arrivals seem more sophisticated about making claims for asylum. These issues, I will cover in the next posting. But for now, I will say that the Dream 9 have shed light on a real problem with the credible fear interview process: Inadmissible aliens can gain entry into the United States by making barely legitimate claims for asylum. While many of these aliens will “pass” the credible fear interview, most will be denied asylum (only about 2% of Mexican asylum claims are granted). The problem is that the increasing number of claims is causing long delays and is threatening to overwhelm the asylum system.

This problem is not new, and it has been known to Asylum Officers and advocates for some time. However, I suspect that the publicity of the Dream 9–combined with the upsurge of people arriving at the border and expressing a fear of persecution–will bring the system under greater scrutiny. So while I support the effort of the Dream 9 to bring attention to the plight of undocumented immigrants, I fear that a side effect of their activity will be further damage to the credible fear system, and further difficulties for legitimate asylum seekers.

Continue reading

11 Comments

Stylometrist “Outs” J.K. Rowling, Helps Win Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

You may already be familiar with the story behind the story of The Cuckoo’s Calling, a novel published under the name Robert Galbraith. Turns out, there is no Robert Galbraith. The story was actually written by J.K. Rowling, of Harry Potter fame. Ms. Rowling hoped to publish the new novel without the Potter baggage, but she was foiled by Patrick Juola, a professor at Duquesne University.

Stylometrists are always stylish. Prof. Juola (left) dressed as GQ man Abe Lincoln.
Stylometrists are always stylish. Prof. Juola (left) dressed as GQ man Abe Lincoln.

Prof. Juola is a mathematician who created a computer program–the Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program (Jgaap)–that can recognize writing tics undetectable by human readers. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Prof. Juola “loaded an electronic version of Cuckoo into Jgaap, along with several other [of Ms. Rowling’s] texts.” The program then

compare[d] the sample texts to the Galbraith text using four variables: word-length distribution; the use of common words like “the” and “of”; recurring-word pairings; and the distribution of “character 4-grams,” or groups of four adjacent characters, words, or parts of words.

The findings were not unequivocal, but they made a pretty strong case for Ms. Rowling as the author of Cuckoo. Confronted with this and other evidence, Ms. Rowling admitted her authorship of the book. She told an interviewer that she would have liked to remain anonymous for a while longer stating that, “Being Robert Galbraith has been such a liberating experience… It has been wonderful to publish without hype and expectation and pure pleasure to get feedback under a different name.”

Stylometry, which is the application of the study of linguistic style, has broader uses than just outing famous authors. It is often used to attribute authorship to anonymous or disputed documents. It has legal as well as academic and literary applications, ranging from the question of the authorship of Shakespeare (whose works were obviously written by Francis Bacon!) to forensic linguistics. It also has application to the world of asylum.

Prof. Juola reports that he used his techniques to help an asylum seeker prove that he was the author of several politically charged articles that had been published anonymously on the internet. According to the Professor’s website, “Using statistical linguistics, we were able to analyze the writing style against an ad-hoc collection of distractor authors and to establish using non-parametric rank-order statistics that the documents had indeed been written by the [asylum] seeker.” In other words, Prof. Juola demonstrated a statistical likelihood that the asylum seeker authored the articles in question. Apparently, this evidence was helpful in the case, as the Immigration Judge granted political asylum.

I was interested to read about Prof. Juola’s work, as I faced a similar issue for an Ethiopian asylum seeker some years ago. He claimed that he wrote newspaper articles under a pseudonym, and those articles were offensive to the government. Somehow, his identity was exposed after he left the country, and he feared persecution if he returned. We needed evidence of the client’s authorship, and so I asked him for the usual stuff–rough drafts of the articles, a letter from the newspaper editor, letters from other people who knew about what he had written. In the end, we had to rely on letters from people who knew him and on his own testimony. Fortunately, it proved to be enough, and he received asylum.

Had I known about Prof. Juola, perhaps I could have used him to assist us in the case (though generally, my clients do not have a lot of money for expert witnesses). While the professor’s analysis cannot demonstrate with 100% certainty that a particular person wrote a particular article or book, Prof. Joula could possibly provide additional support to help corroborate a claim. In a close case, this could make the difference between a denial and a grant.

Continue reading

1 Comment

The Most Important Words in Every Lawyer’s Vocabulary: I Don’t Know

by Jason Dzubow

Recently, I worked on a couple cases where my clients got bad advice, which got them into trouble.

The first case involved a woman with an otherwise strong asylum claim. As a young girl, she and her family were refugees in Iran. Someone in her community advised her it would be better not to tell the U.S. government (or her attorney) that she had been in Iran. The community adviser thought it would harm my client’s chances for relief if she revealed that she spent time in Iran. The client took this advice and did not tell the U.S. government (or me) that she lived in Iran for a few years. The problem, of course, was that the U.S. government–and the Asylum Officer who interviewed her–knew that she had been in Iran. Nevertheless, she denied having been there. After the interview, she told me that she had, in fact, been in Iran, and we submitted a letter to the Asylum Office explaining what happened. She may still get asylum, but her lie damaged her credibility, which could easily result in a denial. We shall see.

If you don't know what you're talking about: Stifle, would-ya?
If you don’t know what you’re talking about: Stifle, would-ya?

The second case involved a woman who had been in the United States for more than one year. She was still in lawful status when conditions in her country changed causing her to fear return. About eight months after the changed circumstances, she went to a reputable non-profit organization to ask about asylum. She did not speak to an attorney, but was advised by a paralegal (or maybe a secretary) that she was ineligible for asylum since she missed the one year filing deadline. In fact, the client met two exceptions to the one-year filing deadline: First, changed circumstances, since country conditions changed, giving rise to her fear of persecution, and second, extraordinary circumstances given that she was still in lawful status when she went to the non-profit seeking advice about asylum. I recently litigated this case and the Immigration Judge granted asylum, but it was a close call. Had the client filed for asylum in a more timely manner, it would have been a much cleaner case.

In both cases, the advisers were (probably) well meaning, but in each case, they gave advice that greatly reduced the client’s chances for success. So my question is, when people don’t know what their talking about, why do they feel compelled to open their mouths and release some sort of useless–and worse than useless–noise?

I remember a similar phenomenon from when I lived in Nicaragua (and I and other people have experienced it in different countries). I would need to find the post office, for example, and so I would ask someone on the street. The person would give an answer, like “Walk two blocks towards the lake, make a left at the church and you’ll see it on the next block.” In fact, the person had no idea where the post office was; he just didn’t want to admit that he didn’t know.

So what gives? Maybe in part, its because people like to look knowledgeable and don’t like to admit ignorance. People often think they know more than they do, or that they understand the way things work, when they don’t. This can be a particular problem in an area like immigration law, where the rules of logic and common sense often do not apply.

To quote Noah ben Shea, “To be wise, we only have to go in search of our ignorance.” Indeed, had my clients’ advisers simply stated that they did not know, it would have saved everyone a lot of trouble. And so here is my advice for asylum seekers: Be careful when taking advice from friends or community members who “know how things work.” The law can be complicated and it sometimes changes. Just because your friend got asylum does not make him an expert–no two cases are the same, and what worked for one person might result in disaster for another. It feels uncomfortable and self serving for me to tell people to hire a lawyer, but time and time again, I see people whose cases (and lives) have been screwed up by bad advice. So find a reputable attorney and pay for some decent advice. In the long run, it may save you a lot of money and a lot of heartache.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Edward Snowden and the Realpolitik of Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

As of this writing, it appears that Edward Snowden, the NSA “whistleblower,” is holed up in the Moscow airport looking for a country to take him in. He already has offers of asylum from Bolivia, Venezuela, and (mi país) Nicaragua. I’ve previously written that Mr. Snowden likely does not qualify for asylum under international law, so why would these countries offer him refuge? The answer is what I would call the “realpolitik” of asylum law.

Realpolitik has been defined as “politics or diplomacy based primarily on power… rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises.”  

Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?
Remember when living in an airport used to be cute?

As applied to asylum law, realpolitik means that the receiving country is not concerned about whether the applicant meets the international law definition of refugee. Rather, the receiving country has some ulterior motive for granting asylum; it hopes to benefit itself or harm a rival by granting refuge.

In Mr. Snowden’s case, it’s not hard to imagine why certain countries–Russia, China, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua–have been willing to facilitate his journey. Russia and China, for example, have poor human rights records, authoritarian governments, and restrictions on press freedom (Freedom House rates both countries “not free”). China in particular is known for censoring the internet and cyber piracy. Venezuela has a less than stellar record when it comes to press freedom and free speech, and it apparently spies on its own citizens. Maybe by assisting Mr. Snowden, these countries hope to improve their own image while bringing the U.S. down a notch or two. Bolivia and Nicaragua perhaps see helping Mr. Snowden as “pay back” for years on the receiving end of American foreign policy (I’m thinking of the Contras in Nicaragua and–more recently–the diversion of the Bolivian president’s plane in an effort to capture Mr. Snowden).

In addition, all these countries might want to show the world that they are not afraid to stand up to the U.S. They might gain prestige (at least in their own minds) if they are seen confronting the big kid on the block.

Another reason that the different countries might offer asylum to Mr. Snowden is that they want to encourage people who damage the U.S. government’s foreign policy. Particularly when foreign relations are viewed as a zero sum game, it makes sense to diminish your rival in order to help yourself. I can see how this rationale might apply to China and the Latin American countries, but I am not sure it works with Russia. Both the U.S. and Russia have been harmed by extremist Islamic terrorists, and you’d think that there would be a mutual interest in fighting this threat (the two countries worked together after the Boston Marathon bombing, for example). It would seem to me that Russia’s protection of Mr. Snowden (and the implied endorsement of his actions) would be counter to that country’s interest in cooperating with us to stop terrorism.

Finally, I suppose it’s possible that the countries aiding Mr. Snowden are helping because they truly believe he did the right thing and they want to support him. Call me cynical, but this I doubt. The idea that Russia or China believe in the principle of government transparency is laughable. Even the Latin American countries, with their Left leaning governments that might support government transparency, seem more interested in antagonizing the U.S. and asserting their independence than in standing up for the principles that Mr. Snowden represents.

As a lawyer interested in humanitarian international law, I fear that when the asylum law is misused for realpolitik purposes, the system is weakened and made less legitimate. Asylum cases always implicate international relations; Mr. Snowden’s case more than most. But the hope is that such considerations can be minimized in order to provide protection to people fleeing persecution, regardless of the political consequences of granting (or denying) asylum.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Immigration Reform and Asylum Fraud

by Jason Dzubow

As lawmakers consider changes to the asylum system, one area of concern is asylum fraud.

If it takes one to know one, Congress should be great at eliminating fraud.
If it takes one to know one, Congress should be great at eliminating fraud.

The Senate Bill, in its current form, would eliminate the one-year asylum filing deadline. This deadline was created in an effort to stop asylum fraud. In reality (and as I discuss here), the one-year deadline does little to stop fraud, but often harms legitimate refugees. What, then, could the Senate do to help reduce asylum fraud? Below are a few suggestions:

  • Investigate and Prosecute Attorneys and Notarios Suspected of Facilitating Fraud – Based on my experience and my conversations with Asylum Officers and DHS attorneys, I believe that a small number of attorneys and notaries are responsible for a large percentage of fraud. Asylum Officers, DHS Attorneys, and Immigration Judges will often harbor suspicions about which attorneys and notaries are producing fraudulent asylum cases. The Government could (1) create a national database of suspected fraudsters; (2) question the clients of suspected fraudsters closely, in order to determine what role the attorney or notario played in preparing the case. Such information could be entered into the database to help build a case against the suspect; (3) if there is sufficient evidence against a particular fraudster, the person could be investigated; (4) attorneys and notarios should be prosecuted for fraud, and—where prosecution is not possible—a bar complaint should be filed against suspected attorneys; and (5) where possible, notarios should be prosecuted for practicing law without a license.
  • Create a Mandatory Immigration Bar – The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) is in the process of creating an electronic registry for attorneys who practice before the Immigration Courts. This registry could be expanded into a mandatory immigration bar. Immigration Judges and Asylum Officers who suspect an attorney’s involvement in fraud could submit a complaint to the bar for investigation. Also, aliens who have been victimized by an attorney could make a complaint to the bar association. 
  • Create a Mandatory Notario Registry – The asylum form, Form I-589, requires that the applicant give the name and contact information for whoever helped the applicant prepare the form. The I-589 form could request additional information about the preparer: (1) whether she charges a fee; (2) what her relationship is to the applicant (hired professional, friend, family member); (3) whether she is an attorney; (4) if she is not an attorney, whether she has informed the applicant that she is not an attorney; and (5) a copy of her photo ID. DOJ and DHS could require all hired preparers to register, and could track the cases they submit in a notario data base. Notarios who engage in bad behavior could then be punished and/or prevented from providing services to asylum applicants.

It seems to me that the above approaches would do more to reduce fraud than the one-year asylum filing deadline. In my experience, the deadline does nothing to stop fraudulent cases.  Instead, it tends to block legitimate asylum seekers who are ignorant of the law, or who don’t file because they hope the situation back home will improve. Other people miss the deadline because they have been traumatized in their country and they do not want to re-live their difficult experiences by having to prepare an asylum case.  One group that has been particularly hard hit by the one-year deadline is LGBT asylum seekers. Often, such people are not “out” when they come to the United States, and they need time before they are able to discuss their sexual orientation publicly. Another group disproportionately affected by the deadline is women, who often fail to file due to shame or lack of knowledge about the asylum system.

Requiring notarios and attorneys to register, and keeping track of them, is more work than simply imposing an arbitrary deadline, but it would have the virtue of actually doing something to solve the problem.

Continue reading

5 Comments

Senators Try to Help Women Immigrants, But Ignore Women Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

A proposed amendment to the Senate Immigration Bill would reserve 30,000 green cards for people in jobs traditionally held by women, such as nannies, home health-care workers, and early childhood educators. The amendment is sponsored by 12 of the 20 women in the U.S. Senate.

According to the Washington Post, the “lawmakers say pending immigration legislation is unfairly weighted toward male workers because it rewards applicants who are better educated and have more technical skills.”

You're in
You’re in

While I agree that the immigration system has been skewed in favor of male immigrants, I am not sure that this is the best way to help female immigrants. Either we need high skilled workers in our economy or we don’t; either we need more nannies in our economy or we don’t. Why not set the number of visas for each category based on the needs of our economy, and then reserve a certain percentage (say 50%) of visas for women. Is this discriminatory? Yes, but Congress has the power to discriminate when it comes to immigration law, and if the idea is to help women and aid our economy, then this would be one way to achieve that goal.

If members of the Senate are inclined to help women immigrants, I have another idea: Do something to rectify the male-centric asylum law.

Modern U.S. asylum law is based on a definition of “refugee” that was codified in the 1950’s. The types of people seeking asylum in those days were mostly men–political activists fleeing persecution, for example–and this is what the law reflects. Gender violence was not part of the equation, and the statute (INA § 101(a)(42)) did not (and does not) protect victims of domestic violence, female genital mutilation, forced marriage or sexual assault. 

The last legislative change to the definition of refugee occurred in 1996 when Congress made forced abortion and forced family planning a basis for refugee status. My impression is that this amendment had more to do with domestic politics (showing fealty to pro-life voters and sticking it to the Chinese Communists) than to helping women, but nevertheless, many women (and men) have benefited from the change.

You're out
You’re out

Other pro-women changes to the law in recent decades have been driven by lawyer advocates. As a result of these changes, it is now possible for victims of FGM and forced marriage to receive asylum. Victims of domestic violence can also sometimes receive asylum. But if Congress is planning to amend the immigration law, and if the Senate wants to help women, why not do something to codify and protect these advances? 

In addition, I would hope that the pro-women Senators would support the elimination of the one-year asylum filing deadline (aliens who fail to file for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States are ineligible for asylum). A study from Temple University and Georgetown (my two alma maters!) has shown that female asylum seekers are 50% more likely to file for asylum three years or more after arrival. In an excellent piece on this point, Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First explains that one reason for the delay is the shame many women feel when they have to publicly describe their persecution. This jibes with my experience–many of my female clients filed late because of shame, depression, ignorance about the asylum system (and whether the persecution they face would qualify them for protection), and what might be called “conditioned subservience.”

I agree with the Senators who believe that something needs to be done to help female immigrants. Helping women who face persecution–and who are currently falling through the cracks of our asylum system–would be an excellent place to begin.

Continue reading

When Clients Lie

by Jason Dzubow

I once represented a Russian woman who paid a notario (or whatever you call the Russian equivalent of a notario) $10,000.00 to concoct a phony story about how the woman was a lesbian who faced persecution in her home country. The application was denied, in part because the notario failed to inform the asylum seeker about the contents of her application, and the woman was referred to Immigration Court.

Admit your mistakes and you may get asylum... or even a seat in Congress.
Admit your mistakes and you may get asylum… or even a seat in Congress.

By the time I got the case, the woman had married a United States citizen (a man) and was facing deportation. We had to decide how best to approach the case, given the client’s previous lies. What we did is the same approach I have used many times since, because it tends to work. We admitted that she lied, explained how the lie happened (basically, a naive young woman following the advice of a high-paid crook), accepted responsibility for what she did wrong, and apologized.

In the end, the client received her green card based on the marriage. My favorite part of the case was when I informed the Immigration Judge that I would have an expert at trial to testify concerning country conditions in Russia: The husband was African American, and if his wife was deported, he planned to follow her to Russia, where he would likely face problems with skinheads and other racists. The Judge, who was also black, told me, “I don’t need an expert to tell me that there is racism in Russia.” We skipped the expert and won the case.

This basic formula–admit the lie, take responsibility, and apologize–is one that has worked for my clients on numerous occasions.

Just last month, for example, we completed the case of an asylee who had been convicted of stealing money from his employer. The crime was an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (because he was sentenced to more than one year in prison). The refuge waiver, under section 209(c) of the INA, is one of the rare waivers that allows an aggravated felon to adjust status from asylum or refugee to lawful permanent resident. It’s not an easy waiver to get, and really isn’t that common (which–I hope–means that asylees rarely commit aggravated felonies).

In that case we used the same formula.  The client took responsibility for his crime, apologized, and promised that he would not engage in such behavior again. We also submitted evidence of rehabilitation. The waiver was granted, the client was released from detention (after a good eight months in jail), and he received his green card.

This same strategy can be used for clients who lied to obtain a visa or who entered the country illegally. The fact finders want to hear that the alien accepts responsibility for what she did. And in asylum cases, there really is little to gain from covering up such lies, as people who falsely obtain a visa (or enter the U.S. illegally) in order to escape persecution are not ineligible for asylum.

The point of all this is not that the client can say the magic words and win permission to remain in the United States. Rather, the alien who accepts responsibility for what he did (and tries to turn his life around) is much more likely to receive relief than the alien who tries to cover it up or blame someone else.

Continue reading

6 Comments

Yours Truly on NPR

by Jason Dzubow

As the new Immigration Bill heads from the committee to the full Senate, NPR turned for comment to a brilliant and seasoned asylum lawyer. Unfortunately, he wasn’t available, so they called me.

NPR listeners hear me explain the finer points of asylum law.
NPR listeners hear me explain the finer points of asylum law.

Yes, your humble blogger debuted earlier this week on the NPR show Talk of the Nation. This was my first ever appearance on radio (though sometime in the mid-1980s, I did appear on a local TV talk show as an example of a kid who did not kill himself as a result of Dungeons & Dragons).

While I am used to talking to judges, appearing on radio before a live audience is quite terrifying. I assumed that I would fall into the fetal position and cry for my mommy. But it was not to be. In fact, I thought the interview went pretty well (you can hear it or read the transcript here).

The title of the show was “Who Gets Asylum, Who Doesn’t and How that May Change.” I was the only guest to appear in-studio, with host Ari Shapiro. Other guests were Dan Stein of the restrictionist group FAIR (which wits on the Left have dubbed “un-FAIR” – we need better wits) and NPR Congressional Correspondent David Welna.

In the space of about 30 minutes, I managed to insult the governments of Pakistan, China, Eritrea, Cuba, Indonesia, Serbia, and possibly Mexico. I also (hopefully) made a decent argument for why the one-year asylum bar should be eliminated (the current version of the Bill would eliminate the bar). I tried to give many examples of asylum seekers who had been persecuted and who were worthy of protection (hence the need to insult numerous governments). And I hopefully made the case for preserving and strengthening the asylum system.

Although I enjoyed my experience at NPR, I can’t say I am particularly optimistic that the current Bill will make it into law. The most important aspects of the Bill are not related to asylum seekers, but the main provision related to asylum–elimination of the one year filing deadline–is important to many people, and thousands of legitimate refugees would benefit if the bar were removed.

We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks. At least one senator predicts that the Bill will pass the Senate with 70 votes prior to July 4th. I hope he is right, but even if he is, the Bill still has to get through the Republican-controlled House. To me, it seems like an up-hill battle. But it is definitely a battle worth fighting.

Continue reading

4 Comments

First Muslim Lesbian Couple to Wed in UK Seeks Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

The Daily Mail reports that a “pair of Pakistani women have made history as the first Muslim lesbian couple to get married” in the United Kingdom:

The couple could not find an Imam to marry them or, apparently, a decent wedding photographer (focus!).
The couple could not find an Imam to marry them or, apparently, a decent wedding photographer (focus!).

Rehana Kausar, 34, and Sobia Kamar, 29, made history when they tied the knot in a register office civil ceremony, then immediately applied for political asylum after they were wed, claiming their lives would be in danger if they returned to their native country.

The pair, from the Lahore and Mirpur regions of Pakistan, said they had received death threats from opponents in Pakistan – where homosexual acts are illegal and considered against Islam. And since news of their wedding earlier this month spread, the pair claimed they had even received death threats from the UK.

The couple was not married in an Islamic ceremony because they could not find an Imam in Britain willing to marry them.

Pakistan has become a fairly violent and lawless society, and–given this couple’s visibility and the death threats they have received–I suspect that their asylum claim will have a high probability of success.

A quick review of reader comments about the Daily Mail article shows that people’s main concern is that the women’s case will open the floodgates, and that anyone claiming to be gay will be able to obtain asylum in the UK (just so you know, my summary of the reader comments is more polite than the actual comments). I am not so sure that this concern is justified.

For one thing, the situation in Pakistan is not as bad as you might imagine for many LGBT people. The New York Times reported on this issue last year:

Homosexual acts remain illegal in Pakistan, based on laws constructed by the British during colonial rule. No civil rights legislation exists to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination.

But the reality is far more complex, more akin to “don’t ask don’t tell” than a state-sponsored witch hunt. For a long time, the state’s willful blindness has provided space enough for gays and lesbians. They socialize, organize, date and even live together as couples, though discreetly….

[W]hile the notion of homosexuality may be taboo, homosocial, and even homosexual, behavior is common enough. Pakistani society is sharply segregated on gender lines, with taboos about extramarital sex that make it almost harder to conduct a secret heterosexual romance than a homosexual one.

Now that the marriage of Rehana Kausar and Sobia Kamar is so public, they do not have the option of being discrete. Other same-sex couples might not be so visible, and therefore would be less likely to qualify for asylum (many LGBT cases have been denied by the UK because the asylum seekers cannot demonstrate visibility or cannot submit sufficient proof to demonstrate that they are gay).

Also, most same-sex couples will probably not face death threats. And if they do face threats, the threats will most likely come from family members. To win asylum under those circumstances, they would need to show that the government is unable and unwilling to protect them and that they cannot safely relocate within the country.

Finally, while this couple was the first Muslim lesbian couple to wed in the UK, there is nothing new about LGBT people seeking asylum. I have represented many such people in the U.S. and, with one exception (from Fiji), they all received asylum. If the floodgates were going to open for LGBT asylum seekers, it would have happened a long time ago. This most recent case is (unfortunately) just one of many where an LGBT individual will be harmed if she returns to her country.

While the case of Rehana Kausar and Sobia Kamar is significant because it is a “first,” I don’t see how it is significant in terms of developing the law for LGBT asylum seekers. Given what I know of the situation in Pakistan, my guess is that this couple faces a significant threat of harm or death. I hope the UK will see fit to grant their application for protection.

Continue reading

3 Comments

American Lawyer Assists Australian Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Michael “Dan” Mori is a former Marine Corp attorney who gained fame defending Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, an Australian national captured by the Americans in Afghanistan.  With Mr. Mori’s help, Mr. Hicks accepted a favorable Alfred plea (basically meaning that he did not admit guilt, but agreed that there was enough evidence to convict him). He was sentenced to seven years in prison for supporting terrorists, a charge that he denies. All but nine months of the sentence were suspended. Mr. Hicks served most of his nine months in Australia and was released. The plea came after five years at Gitmo, under less than pleasant circumstances. The case gained quite a bit of attention, as it was the first conviction by a U.S. war crimes tribunal since World War II.

After the Hick’s case, Mr. Mori’s career in the Marines apparently stalled. He alleged (in a lawsuit) that the military retaliated against him for his work on Mr. Hick’s case. He eventually was promoted, but retired soon thereafter and moved to Australia. There, he started work at the plaintiff law firm Shine as a Social Justice Consultant.

It seems that Mr. Mori’s latest project is to help asylum seekers detained by the Australian government on the island of Nauru.

Come on, Mori, admit it - You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!
Come on, Mori, admit it – You took the Nauru gig for the beaches!

Nauru is a small island republic in a remote part of the Pacific Ocean. The country became wealthy in the 1960s and 70s by exploiting mineral resources, but when those ran out, the economy went bust. In 2001, Nauru entered into an agreement with Australia to house refugees seeking admission to Australia. In exchange, Australia provides Nauru with financial assistance and technical aid.

The refugee detention center on Nauru has been controversial, and it has closed and re-opened several times. The latest incarnation of the detention center  opened last year in August and holds about 400 men. After a visit to Nauru, Amnesty International described the camp as “a human rights catastrophe … a toxic mix of uncertainty, unlawful detention and inhumane conditions.”  

In September 2012, there was an alleged riot at the camp and property was destroyed. The government charged 10 detainees with rioting and destruction of property. The case of the “Nauru 10” is currently pending, and this is where Mr. Mori comes into the picture.

Mr. Mori and other defense lawyers filed a habeas corpus petition in Nauru, claiming that the detainees are being unlawfully held. The defense team convinced a Nauru court to adjourn the criminal charges until the habeas issue is resolved, and that issue remains pending.

“Whether or not you agree with the process… you have to agree that people being detained should have access to legal help,” said Mr. Mori, who compared the situation in Nauru with Guantanamo Bay. “You have to push the politics aside and remember, if someone’s detained they need access to the law.”

There is a lot at stake for Nauru, which has become dependent on the Australian aid, and for the asylum seekers, whose fate rests in the hands of the Nauru court system. I hope that Mr. Mori and the other lawyers can bring a measure of justice to this obscure corner of the globe.

Continue reading

5 Comments

In Defense of Muslim Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Since the Boston bombing, we’ve heard much talk about restricting access to asylum (and immigration) for Muslims. Opponents of reform have wondered aloud how the Tsarnaev brothers entered the U.S. and why their father received asylum in the first place (the brothers obtained derivative asylum based on their father’s application). One commentator called for a halt to student visas for Muslims; another for an end to all Muslim immigration.

As Ben Franklin said, "Hang together or get hanged alone."
As Ben Franklin said, “We must all hang together or assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

The common belief among such people is that Muslims coming to America pose a threat. And even if only a small percentage of Muslims actually present a threat, we’re better off excluding all Muslims, just to be on the safe side.

Of course I disagree with this viewpoint. In my practice, I have represented many Muslim asylum seekers–from countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Somalia, and Syria. These are people who have devoted their lives–and often risked their lives–to promote democracy, women’s rights, and human rights. Many have served shoulder-to-shoulder with soldiers from the U.S. military in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not uncommon for my clients to have letters of recommendation from members of the military, including high-ranking officers like Generals McChrystal and Petraeus. Indeed, I suspect that my Muslim clients have risked and sacrificed far more in the defense of liberty and in support of the U.S. than the commentators who routinely disparage them.

To illustrate the point, here is a sampling of a few of my recent cases involving Muslim asylum seekers (I have changed the names to protect my clients’ confidentiality):

Daoud is an Afghan man who worked as an interpreter for a private contractor. He served directly with soldiers from the United States military in Afghanistan and was several times in combat situations. His main job was to provide interpretation between the U.S. military and local people. He also provided cultural training to the soldiers. In a counterinsurgency operation, gaining the trust of local people is crucial for identifying and eliminating insurgents. Daoud’s role in his unit’s missions was indispensable. Along with Daoud’s application for asylum, we included letters attesting to his service from many members of the United States military. The letters came from soldiers who served with Daoud and from a two star general familiar with his work. We are currently waiting for a decision in his asylum case.

Fatima is a woman’s rights activist who founded an NGO to educate girls in Afghanistan. The NGO received support from USAID and other international donors, and expanded its work into many Afghan provinces. The Taliban learned of Fatima’s activities and repeatedly threatened her. At some point, the threats became too much, and she decided it was unsafe for her to return to Afghanistan. Her asylum application is pending.

Brahim is an Egyptian activist for gay rights and women’s rights. After the Egyptian revolution, he faced increasing harassment from government officials. He was attacked on several occasions and the police refused to help (once, they actually detained him, even though he was the victim of an assault). With the ascendance of the Muslim Brotherhood, he felt unable to remain safely in Egypt. His application for asylum has received preliminary approval.

Abdul is a journalist and peace activist from Iran. He is also related to an important Iranian opposition leader who lives in exile. Abdul assisted that leader by providing on-the-scene reporting from Tehran during the Green Revolution. After he went to study abroad, the Iranian authorities arrested Abdul’s girlfriend and threatened to arrest him. Rather than return to Iran, Abdul filed for political asylum. His application was granted earlier this year.

These cases are typical of the Muslim asylum seekers that I have represented. They—and thousands like them—have fought and sacrificed and bled in the war against Islamic extremism.

In the aftermath of the Boston attack, perpetrated by two brothers who received asylum in the United States, I understand the desire to examine security procedures for asylum seekers. When you extend a helping hand and then get bit, it’s only natural to hesitate before helping again. But as we think about changing the asylum system in response to the terrorist attack, we should keep in mind people like my clients and the many Muslims who have demonstrated their fealty to us in our fight against extremism.

We should not allow the evil deed of the Tsarnaev brothers to cause us to retreat from our humanitarian obligations, which would compromise our principles, or to weaken our commitment to our Muslim allies, who are crucial in our battle against Islamic terrorists. When making changes to our asylum system, we should be guided by our highest ideals, not by the dark vision of the Tsarnaev brothers.

Continue reading

2 Comments

CIS Uses Boston Attack to Condemn Asylum, Immigration System

by Jason Dzubow

The “low immigration, pro-immigrant” group Center for Immigration Studies claims that the “United States has naturalized at least a few thousand alleged terrorists in recent years.” As evidence for this dramatic claim, CIS lists exactly four (four!) examples of naturalized foreigners who engaged (or attempted to engage) in terrorist acts, including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev who is charged in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Hmm... There's something strange about this Naturalization ceremony.
Hmm… There’s something strange about this Naturalization ceremony.

How CIS got from four alleged terrorists to “thousands” is not explained. Although I often disagree with CIS’s conclusions, I’ve found them to be generally reliable when it comes to the facts. Not so in this case. To make such an outrageous and inflammatory claim with almost no evidence casts doubt on the organization’s credibility.

Concerned about the possibility of major immigration reform, is CIS becoming unhinged? Will they–like so many partisan groups–make all sorts of unsubstantiated claims in the hope of getting their way (i.e., killing immigration reform)?

It seems that in many of our country’s policy debates, the end justifies the means. “Swiftboating” has replaced reasoned debate. I hope that CIS won’t go down this road. Like I say, I often disagree with CIS, but I recognize the need for different voices in the conversation. For those voices to make a positive impact, however, they must be grounded in reality. CIS should correct their unfounded claim that the U.S. has “naturalized at least a few thousand alleged terrorists,” and issue an apology.

With that as background, I want to turn briefly to CIS’s testimony on Capitol Hill. This past Monday, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of CIS testified about the proposed immigration reform before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He spoke about the Tsarnaev family who–he said–immigrated to the United States a decade ago after receiving political asylum. Mr. Krikorian asked:

Why were they given asylum since they had passports from Kyrgyzstan and, especially, why were they given asylum since the parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were fleeing and wanted asylum from?

A few points. Maybe this is an immigration-lawyer-geek point, but by definition, no one immigrates to the U.S. after receiving political asylum. It is only possible to obtain political asylum if you are already present in the United States. In the case of the Tsarnaev family, events are a bit unclear. It appears that the father came as a non-immigrant to the United States in 2002 with Dzhokhar, and then applied for–and received–political asylum. Afterward, he brought his wife and minor children (including alleged bomber Tamerlan) to the United States. Maybe this is a geek point, but if I were from an immigration organization testifying before Congress, I would want to get the law and terminology correct.

Second, I do not know how Mr. Krikorian knows that the Tsarnaev family had passports from Kyrgyzstan. As far as I know, the family were Russian citizens, and the father was originally from Chechnya, which is part of Russia. While it appears that at least the younger brother was born in Kyrgyzstan, this does not necessarily mean that he had a Kyrgz passport or was a citizen of that country (unlike the U.S., many countries do not automatically confer citizenship on people born within their territory). Assuming that the father had Kyrgz citizenship, he would not have qualified for asylum unless he demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Kyrgyzstan or that he was not firmly resettled in that country. As of now, we do not know why the father received asylum from Russia, let alone from Kyrgyzstan. Suffice it to say that the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan is no picnic, and that country has produced several hundred thousand refugees. While Mr. Krikorian’s question (why was the family given asylum if they had passports from Kyrgyzstan?) is reasonable, the implied answer (that the family should not have received asylum) is pure speculation.

Finally, Mr. Krikorian asks why the family received asylum since the parents have moved back to Russia, the country supposedly they were fleeing. Again, the implication is that the family should not have received asylum. Mr. Krikorian does not answer his own question, and indeed, we do not know why the father returned to Russia. Maybe he felt that conditions had improved and it would be safe for him to return. Maybe the father was more concerned with his children’s safety than his own, and so once his children were safely in the U.S., he decided to return. Or maybe–as Mr. Krikorian implies–the asylum case was fraudulent from the beginning. At this point, we don’t know. And while I agree that we need to explore all aspects of the brothers’ history, I am not sure that the investigation is well served by cynical assumptions that the father’s asylum claim was false.

As I have said, I often disagree with CIS, but I believe they (and other restrictionist groups) have an important role to play in the current discussion about immigration and asylum reform. I just believe that the debate–and the credibility of CIS–would be better served if the organization speculated a little less, and got the facts right a little more.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Attention Glenn Beck – Please Hire Me!

by Jason Dzubow

It seems that Glenn Beck is hiring immigration lawyers, and I want in.  First, some background:

I’ve written before (here and here) about the Romeike family, a German Evangelical homeschooling family. They were granted political asylum in the United States after the German government tried to force them to send their children to public school. DHS appealed the ruling, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s decision. The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Oral argument is scheduled for later this month.

The Romeikes have a tough case. They have to demonstrate that they face persecution in Germany. They face fines and possible jail time, and they might even lose custody of their children. Such punishments are harsh, but I doubt a court would find that they rise to the level of persecution (though maybe the loss of the children would qualify).

This would be me if I worked for Glenn Beck (except I am not black) (and I normally do not wear a tie).
This would be me if I worked for Glenn Beck (except I am not black) (and I normally do not wear a tie).

Further, and this may be the most controversial aspect of the case, the Department of Justice is supposedly taking the position that the Romeikes do not have a “right to home school anywhere.”  At least this is how the Home School Legal Defense Association characterizes the DOJ’s position. Frankly, I am a bit skeptical that this is actually DOJ’s position (their brief is not public, so I have not seen it), given that they can probably win their case without stirring up this type of controversy (see previous paragraph). But I suppose if DOJ wanted to make all possible arguments against asylum, this would be one.

So how does Glenn Beck tie into all this?

Earlier this week, Mr. Beck discussed the Romeike family on his show:

“They [Romeikes] did it the right way,” said Beck. “They had their visas. They came here and asked for political asylum. Because if they return to Germany the state will take their children unless they dump them into the system that [goes against their Evangelical values].”

Beck said that the idea of deporting the Romeikes flies in the face of everything that the U.S. stands for. “There is nothing more un-American than this.”

Mr. Beck compared the family with our country’s earliest settlers, who were seeking religious liberty.

The Romeike’s have become a bit of a cause célèbre among American homeschoolers and religious conservatives. A petition to the White House supporting them has received over 100,000 signatures, and–this is the part that caught my attention–Glenn Beck has pledged $50,000 to pay for their legal fees.

As a side note, I do these cases for far less than $50,000 (for affirmative asylum cases, I charge $2,400, which makes me think I need to raise my rates). Mr. Beck, if you feel inclined to help out others seeking asylum based on religious persecution (and I represent many, including people from Iran, Iraq, China, Afghanistan, and Eritrea), please give me a call.

So is it hypocritical for conservatives who normally oppose immigration to support the Romeikes? Writing for Salon, Sally Kohn theorizes that Mr. Beck and his fellow conservatives are supporting the Romeikes because they are white. While I am no fan of Glenn Beck, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one (though it seems reasonable to ask why he isn’t funding asylum seekers from countries like Iran and Eritrea, which harshly punish–and kill–religious dissidents). So what’s going on here?

My guess is that Mr. Beck is confusing American values–such as allowing parents to home school their children–with asylum law, which protects people from persecution on account of religion. Just because we in the U.S. enjoy a particular right–like the right to school our children at home–does not mean that an alien can get asylum when his country refuses to allow him the same right. We have a right to abortion in the U.S. and a right to own a gun, but I doubt an alien who was denied one of these rights in another country would qualify for asylum in the U.S.

Also, I wonder whether Mr. Beck has thought about the dreaded “slippery slope” argument. Would he support this family if they were members of a Christian Identity (i.e., Neo-Nazi) Church? What if they were (gasp!) Muslims?

The Romeikes, like any other asylum seeker, need to show that they face persecution, as that term has been defined by case law. Otherwise, they simply do not qualify for asylum. I wish the Romeikes well in their case. But if it doesn’t work out for them, and if Glenn Beck wants to fund some other worthy asylum seekers who are fleeing religious persecution, I have a few cases he might be interested in…

I corrected an error in an earlier version of this post (see comments).

Continue reading

4 Comments