Who Was Emma Lazarus?

by Jason Dzubow

Everyone knows her words:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

But if you are like me, you probably don’t know much about the woman who wrote these lines in 1883.  A new exhibit at the New York Museum of Jewish Heritage explores the life and times of Emma Lazarus. 

The words of Emma Lazarus continue to inspire.

The exhibit, Emma Lazarus: Poet of Exiles, marks the 125th anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty, and is the first major museum exhibition about Ms. Lazarus.  The exhibit includes rare artifacts that explore her unique story and message.  Emma Lazarus was a poet, playwrite, and novelist.  She also translated many works from Jewish poets into English.  She was a decendant of Portugese Sephardic Jews, who settled in the U.S. prior to the Revolutionary War.  Her family includes several prominent Americans, including Benjamin Cardozo, an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Ms. Lazarus was also an activist.  She taught Russian Jewish immigrants in New York and helped them become self supporting.  She also traveled twice to Europe.  When she returned from her second trip, she was very ill (probably with cancer), and she died two months later, in November 1887.  She was 38 years old.

The exhibit opened last month and runs until the summer of 2012.  To learn more, check out the museum’s website, here.  Also, if you would like to read more about Emma Lazarus, check this post in the Jewish Women’s Archive.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Jewish Lawyers; Muslim Immigrants

by Jason Dzubow

There is a story told about a Jewish Holocaust survivor who was a prisoner at the Auschwitz death camp.  Every day, this man thanks G-d; each day more loudly and exuberantly than the day before.  Finally, the man’s fellow prisoners become annoyed with him: “How can you thank G-d,” they asked, “when we are in this place?  When the Nazis are daily murdering us and torturing us?”  The man replies: “I am thanking G-d because He did not make me like the Nazis.”

To me, this story represents a quintessential aspect of being Jewish.  Even in the face of the worst evil known to man, the Jew remains true to his values, to his morality, and to his faith.

Today we live in difficult, dangerous times.  The threat of terrorism looms ever present.  The most visible terrorists are Muslim extremists: Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Shabaab.  They threaten America and the West.  They threaten Israel.

How, then, should American Jews–and specifically American Jewish lawyers–respond to Muslim immigrants and refugees coming to the United States?  This is an issue I face every day, as I represent many Muslims who are seeking political asylum from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran.

Some Jewish lawyers have taken to attacking Islam and Muslims in the United States.  The most well-known example is probably David Yerushalmi, who is behind many state laws designed to protect our country from what he calls the infiltration of Sharia law.  Other Jews who are not lawyers (yes, I suppose this is to their credit) are also prominent in the anti-Islam movement in the United States.  Probably most well-known among them is Pam Geller, the blogger behind the “World Trade Center Mega Mosque” controversy.

I must admit that such people inspire in me strongly negative emotions.  But in the spirit of the season (and my rabbi’s Yom Kippur sermon), I will try to say my piece without criticizing them.  As the rabbi put it, I will try to tell  my truth with love.

First, I believe my fellow Jews’ opposition to Islam and Muslims is not consistent with Jewish values.  Our people have been on the receiving end of persecution for millennium.  We should not subject others to persecution, or even the implied threat of persecution, based on stereotypes.  Particularly since the Muslims who have come to the U.S. are often people who faced persecution or discrimination in their homelands (for this reason, they left).  As Rabbi Hillel famously said, “What is hateful to you, do not do to others.”

Second, I think such behavior is bad for the Jews and divisive for our community.  Like it or not, most Jews are liberals.  This stems from our religious teachings as well as our communal experience as a persecuted minority (for example, the Torah repeatedly reminds us to have one law for the alien and the native born, and not to mistreat the stranger, for we were strangers in Egypt).  We tend to sympathize with other minorities.  Hence, our disproportional representation in social justice movements.  The strident attacks on Muslims (a small minority in the U.S.) and the implication that Jews who disagree with such attacks are “self hating,” naive or traitorous is alienating to many Jews, and will ultimately weaken our community.

Finally, the attack on Islam and Muslims is a bad strategy.  Many Muslims look to the West and the United States as models for development.  The Arab Spring shows that many Muslims–perhaps a large majority–dream of democratic reforms, freedom, and free economies.  Closer to home, I represent many Muslims–journalists, human rights workers, advocates for women’s rights, people who worked with the U.S. military–who have risked their lives to help us in our fight against Islamic extremism.  By attacking all Muslims, we potentially alienate such people and lose valuable allies in our war on terror.

Jews are an argumentative, stubborn people.  There’s an old joke about a Jewish man who is stranded alone on a desert island.  When he is finally rescued after many years, his rescuers notice that he built two synagogues on the island.  When they ask him why, he points to one synagogue: “This is the synagogue where I worship.”  “And the other one?,” they ask.  “That one,” says the man,” I wouldn’t set foot in.”  In the new year, I hope we can be less divisive and more respectful of each other’s views.  I hope we can look for the good in others, and give people the benefit of the doubt, even people who disagree with us, or who are different from us.  L’Shana Tova.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Bolivian Man Accused of Genocide Has Asylum in the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow

Late last month, Bolivia’s Supreme Court of Justice convicted seven former military and government officials of genocide, reports Indian Country Today Media Network.  The military officials received 10-15 years imprisonment and the civilians three years in prison.  However, the primary suspects in the case, former president Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and former defense minister Carlos Sánchez Berzain, remain in the United States.  As far as I can tell, Mr. Sanchez de Lozada is either a citizen or a permanent resident of the United States.  Mr. Sanchez Berzain was granted asylum in the U.S. in 2008 (sparking protests in Bolivia).

Carlos Sanchez Berzain: Accused mass murderer and...

The convictions and accusations stem from a 2003 incident known as the Bolivian Gas War, where protesters blocked a natural gas shipment from Bolivia to Chile.  The then-president of Bolivia used the military to open the road.  As a result of this incident, as many as 67 people died (all of them members of Bolivia’s indigenous Aymara community) and 400 were injured.  The “war” was part of a larger economic and social conflict in Bolivia, and as a result President Sanchez de Lozada resigned from office.  The current president, Evo Morales, was a leader of the protesters.

Since Messrs. Sanchez de Lozada and Sanchez Berzain have been in the U.S., the Bolivian government has filed a formal extradition request, which so far has not been acted upon.  Also, victims of the alleged genocide have filed a lawsuit under the Alien Torts Statute against the two Bolivian leaders seeking to hold them accountable for the deaths in 2003.  The lawsuit involves some heavy hitters on both sides.  For the plaintiffs: Ira Kurzban, Harvard University’s Human Rights Clinic, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the law firm Akin Gump.  Representing the defendants are my former idol Alan Dershowitz (who seems to have repositioned himself from a defender of civil liberties to a defender of all things right-wing), and the law firms Williams and Connelly, LLP and Greenberg Traurig.  In November 2009, the District Court dismissed some counts of the complaint and allowed others to go forward.  The defendants appealed, and the case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Ned Flanders look-alike.

As there is (probably) enough evidence for the civil case to move ahead, I wonder whether the Department of Homeland Security is investigating the asylee defendant, Mr. Sanchez Berzain.  Under the law of asylum, one who engaged in genocide or persecution of others is ineligible for asylum.  Clearly, there is some evidence that Mr. Sanchez Berzain was involved in persecuting people.  Aside from the District Court ruling, a leader of the indigenous peoples of Bolivia called Mr. Sancehz Berzain the “specific intellectual author” of the 2003 massacre. 

Given the calls to deport the housekeeper in the DSK case (who seemingly lied about her asylum claim), I wonder whether there will be a similar outcry here, where the asylee is accused of much worse than lying.  My guess is–since our country has a rocky relationship (at best) with President Morales–it’s likely DHS will look the other way when it comes to Mr. Sanchez Berzain.  And that’s too bad–asylum law is supposed to be based on international principles; not politics.   

Continue reading

Should the U.S. Send Asylum Seekers to Mexico?

by Jason Dzubow

The government of Australia recently entered into an agreement with Malaysia whereby the next 800 asylum seekers who arrive illegally by boat in Australia will be sent to Malaysia where their asylum cases will be processed.  The deal still needs to have some kinks ironed out, but it seems that if an asylum case is approved, the asylee would join the (long) queue of registered refugees waiting for resettlement to Australia or elsewhere.  While the asylum seekers’ cases are pending, they will have permission to work or study in Malaysia, and they will have access to healthcare (at least theoretically: the Malaysian government does not have a great reputation for its treatment of refugees).  In exchange for taking the asylum seekers, Australia will accept 4,000 refugees–i.e., people who have already been determined to qualify for refugee status–from Malaysia, and Australia will pay for the plan.  The hope is that by sending asylum seekers to Malaysia and putting them at the back of the resettlement line, the new plan will eliminate the incentive for people to come illegally to Australia.

Malaysian Tourism Minister laments the new plan: "Not even refugees want to come here!"

The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights has questioned the legality of this arrangement.  But Australia is pressing ahead with the plan, and has already identified the first boatload of asylum seekers who will be sent to Malaysia.  The Australian Prime Minister sees this plan as a way to reduce the lucrative alien smuggling business and protect refugees:

“I made it very clear that what I wanted to do was to break the back of the people smuggling model, to take away from them the very product that they sell, to stop people risking their lives at sea and to stop people profiting from human misery,” Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at a news conference. “I wanted to see us do something to end the profitability of people smuggling.”

My question is, could the U.S. adopt such a model to discourage asylum seekers who enter the U.S. at our Southern border?  Such people often make a long and dangerous journey from their country to ours.  They pass through many countries before entering the United States illegally and applying for asylum.  Thus, it seems these asylum seekers are subject to a “push” (a reason to leave their home countries) and a “pull” (a reason to come to the U.S. rather than another country).  What if we eliminated the “pull” by sending such people to a third country to process their cases?  Some thoughts:

For a start, we would need a country willing to accept our asylum seekers.  The most obvious choice is Mexico.  Mexico is trying to comply with international refugee law, and most asylum seekers entering the U.S. illegally have to pass through Mexico to get here.  The asylum seekers from China and Africa who pay thousands of dollars to smugglers, are paying to come to the U.S., not to Mexico.  And–no offense to Mexico–I don’t think asylum seekers would pay these exorbitant sums if their journeys ended in Mexico.  So if we sent our asylum seekers to Mexico, it would reduce the “pull” factor and might discourage large numbers of people from trying to come here illegally (and risking their lives in the process).

On the other hand, there are good reasons why we should not adopt Australia’s model.  A letter from Human Rights Watch to the Prime Minister of Australia makes some convincing arguments against “outsourcing” asylum seekers.  First, there are real questions about whether the receiving country will treat asylum seekers in accordance with Australia’s (or our) human rights obligations.  Second, forcibly transferring asylum seekers may violate treaty commitments.  The HRW letter continues:

We are also concerned that this deal is premised on the dangerous notion that obligations of states party to the Refugee Convention can be transferred to states with no such convention obligations.  Finally, we also fear that this deal tries to subvert the principles underlying refugee resettlement by transforming resettlement from a tool of international protection into a mechanism of migration-control.

To these reasons, I would add that transferring asylum seekers sets a bad precedent for how other countries will treat asylum seekers.  The United States sets the standard for many areas of international law and policy.  If we shirk our commitment to asylum seekers, other countries will follow suit.  Finally, we often forget how much asylum seekers contribute to our country.  Check out this list of famous refugees for some well-known examples of refugees who have contributed greatly to their host countries.

We will see how the Australian experiment proceeds.  It will be relatively easy to determine whether the plan reduces the number of illegal migrants, but it will be difficult to measure how the plan impacts human rights.  We need to look at both sides of the equation before we consider such an approach for our country.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Refugee Congress to Meet in DC

by Jason Dzubow

As part of UNHCR’s 60 year anniversary, the agency is hosting a Refugee Congress in Washington, DC on August 3 and 4, 2011.  The Congress will focus on refugees in the United States, and will provide an opportunity for the refugees themselves to share their experiences and help ensure that people still in need are not forgotten.  In the end, the Refugee Congress plans to create recommendations for the U.S. Congress and to generate a report for a Ministerial Meeting in Geneva later this year.

Hopefully the Refugee Congress is more functional than these guys.

One refugee who will attend the Congress is Haidar Al Mamoury, an Iraqi refugee who came to the U.S. in 2009.  Mr. Al Mamoury was working with U.S. contractors to help rebuild Iraq when he began receiving death threats.  He and his family fled the country and settled in Nashville, TN.  Now, Mr. Al Mamoury is working on a Master’s Degree and encouraging his children to learn English.  He hopes that the Refugee Congress will help other refugees adjust to life in the United States.

The delegates will meet at Georgetown University Law Center, and then go to Capitol Hill for a reception and to meet with different Congressional representatives.  Speakers include Vincent Cochetel from UNHCR, Eskinder Negash, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and Eric P. Schwartz from the State Department Office of Population Refugees, and Migration.  But the big draw is probably Alek Wek, a British-Sudanese supermodel who is a long-time advocate for refugees.  

The Refugee Congress will be held in conjunction with the National Consultation, the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s annual stakeholder meeting.  According to ORR, “The annual Consultation provides a unique opportunity for stakeholders throughout the network to share ideas, engage in discussion, and expand the partnerships that form the backbone of the [refugee resettlement] program.”

Hopefully these events will bring some positive attention to the plight of refugees in the U.S. and worldwide.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Pirates Brought to the U.S. for Prosecution Might Seek Asylum

by Jason Dzubow

During the first half of 2011, piracy attacks in the Indian Ocean increased by 36%.  But prosecution of captured pirates remains relatively rare.  In fact, four-fifths of captured pirates are released without further ado.  

A recent incident is proving an exception to the rule.  A group of Somali pirates was captured last February after they murdered four American on a sailboat off the coast of East Africa.  The men were transported to Virginia (which apparently has a long history of prosecuting pirates).  Eleven plead guilty and three others will be indicted on various charges later this month.  They could face the death penalty.     

The Virginia example notwithstanding, why are so few pirates being prosecuted?  One reason may be logistics.  It’s not easy to transport pirates from the high seas near African to a courtroom in the West (or even to Kenya, where some pirates are tried based on an international agreement).  Another reason might be a fear that the pirates would claim asylum once they reached a Western country.  A recent law review article by Yvonne M. Dutton explores this very question.

In her article, Pirates and Impunity: Is the Threat of Asylum Claims a Reason to Allow Pirates to Escape Justice, Professor Dutton argues that there is little danger of pirates gaining asylum (or Withholding of Removal  or relief under the UN Convention Against Torture).  Any danger of a pirate claiming asylum, she writes, is offset by the need to bring the pirates to justice.

Yaar! I'll be claimin' political asylum.

Professor Dutton writes that most Somali pirates would not qualify for asylum–they do not fear persecution in their country based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.  She also writes that many pirate-asylum seekers would automatically be disqualified from asylum due to their criminal histories.  She believes that pirates would generally not qualify for relief under the Torture Convention because they could not demonstrate a likelihood of torture if they return to their home country.  And, even if a pirate-asylum seeker demonstrates that he faces torture, the U.S. could seek diplomatic assurances that he would not be tortured if returned home.  Also, pirates could possibly be removed to a safe third country.  Finally, Professor Dutton concludes that even if some pirates do seek asylum, that is a reasonable price to pay for assuring that pirates are prosecuted: “Captured pirates should not be able to get away with murder simply because developed nations do not wish to deal with a relatively few additional asylum claims.”

While I generally agree with her conclusions, I can’t help but think that Professor Dutton is underestimating the creativity of Somali asylum seekers (and their attorneys).  There are plenty of former gang members from Central America who seek–and sometimes obtain–asylum, Withholding of Removal or Torture Convention relief.  In some ways, their cases are not very different from the Somali pirates (though one key difference is that the pirates are being transported to the U.S. for prosecution, while the former gang members usually make their own way here).

I also disagree with Professor Dutton’s idea that pirates could be returned to Somalia after receiving diplomatic assurances that they will not be tortured.  To the extent that Somalia has a government, I doubt it can be trusted with any diplomatic assurances. 

Finally, I have real doubts that a third country would be willing to accept the pirates who we cannot return home. 

These points are all pretty minor.  Very few Somali pirates would qualify for asylum or any other relief if they are brought to the U.S. for trial.  And–given the scope of the problem–it seems well worth the risk to end the culture of impunity that allows piracy to flourish off the African coast.  

Continue reading

2 Comments

Doctors, Detention, and Dual Loyalty

by Jason Dzubow

A recent report by Physicians for Human Rights (“PHR”) articulates the difficult dilemma faced by physicians who serve detained immigrants.  Such physicians have a “dual loyalty” problem:

Health professionals working in detention facilities run directly under DHS oversight, report to the federal agency charged with managing health care for detainees, the ICE Health Service Corps (HSC).  Like ICE, HSC is a division of DHS, and therefore, has objectives that tend to focus on deportation and security, rather than on providing comprehensive health care to immigrants in detention.  Review of the HSC mission statement clearly demonstrates that its mandate is prone to conflict with health professionals’ obligation to provide their patients with the best possible care.  The HSC website proudly proclaims: “We protect America by providing health care and public health services in support of immigration law enforcement.”

Perhaps Janus, not Asclepius, is an appropriate patron deity for DHS Doctors.

A doctor’s first loyalty should be to her patient.  However, there are many examples of third parties infringing on the doctor-patient relationship: insurance companies and hospital administrators being two of the most common.  In the case of detained immigrants, a doctor’s loyalty to her patient may be compromised by her loyalty to her employer–in this case, the Department of Homeland Security.  The PHR report points out that this should not happen:

While the term “dual loyalty” may imply equivalence between a medical professional’s loyalty to the patient and loyalty to third party interests [such as DHS], no such equivalence exists.  Ethically, with very rare and well-circumscribed exceptions, a health professional is obligated to act in the interest of the patient above all other concerns.

Great in theory, but not always easy to implement in reality.  The report offers several recommendations, including the following:

  • Require that health care professionals working in detention centers report to health organizations, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, so that they may maintain clinical independence.  They should not report to the Department of Homeland Security or to for-profit private contractors.
  • Create an independent oversight organization to monitor provision of health care in all facilities that house immigration detainees.
  • Create an ombudsman office to which detainees may easily report grievances regarding access to medical care.
  • Make the Performance Based National Detentions Standards (PBNDS) legally enforceable in all facilities that house immigration detainees.  Failure to adhere should result in contract cancellation.

DHS detains about 400,000 people each year.  The recommendations in the PHR report would help to improve medical care for these people and would also help to mitigate the “dual loyalty” problem faced by physicians in the system.  Further, PHR’s recommendations do not seem particularly costly.  Indeed, the primary recommendation–that physicians working with detained immigrants report to HHS instead of DHS–should cost next to nothing.  The recommendations are worthy of consideration by DHS.

Continue reading

Somali Asylee Sues His Torturer in U.S. Court

by Jason Dzubow

A Somali human rights activist who received asylum in Great Britain has sued his alleged torturer, Abdi Aden Magan, in a U.S. District Court in Ohio.  According to the Associated Press:

Abukar Hassan Ahmed filed suit against his alleged torturer.

The lawsuit claims Abdi Aden Magan of Columbus[, Ohio] authorized the torture of Abukar Hassan Ahmed when Magan served as investigations chief of the National Security Service of Somalia, a force dubbed the “Gestapo of Somalia.”  The suit… seeks unspecified damages from Magan, who served under Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.

The allegations are a chance for Ahmed to tell the world what happened to him, said Andrea Evans, legal director of the Center for Justice & Accountability, a San Francisco-based center that has brought a number of similar lawsuits.  “We see it as a much broader call for justice than just financial gain,” Evans said. “It really is kind of telling history accurately.”

Last week, the State Department weighed in with a letter indicating that Mr. Magan does not enjoy immunity from suit:

[T]aking into account the relevant principles of customary international law, and considering the overall impact of this matter on the foreign policy of the United States, the Department of State has determined that Defendant Magan does not enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

I wonder about the immigration status of the alleged torturer, Mr. Magan.  If the civil suit demonstrates that he is, in fact, a torturer, it seems to me that DHS should move to deport Mr. Magan, or perhaps DOJ would choose to prosecute him criminally (for the torture and–most likely–for committing immigration fraud by lying to cover up the torture).  Our nation should not be in the business of harboring human rights abusers, and once such an abuser is identified, we should move swiftly to see that justice is done.   

Continue reading

1 Comment

Think You Can Do Better Than USCIS – Let Them Know!

by Jason Dzubow

The Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations (RAIO) Directorate will hold a stakeholders meeting on March 2, 2011 at 2:00 PM (EST) in Washington, DC.  The purpose of the meeting is

to discuss changes to the organizational structure of the Directorate. RAIO aims to strengthen cohesion between its three divisions by developing directorate-level functions that will allow for more integrated planning, guidance, and management of knowledge assets. During the session, USCIS will provide an overview of the organizational changes and plans for the transition as well as address questions and concerns from stakeholders.

RAIO is the office responsible for overseeing, planning, and implementing policies and activities related to asylum and refugee issues as well as immigration services overseas.  It is made up of three divisions: (1) The Refugee Affairs Division, which is a principal partner in the United States Refugee Admissions Program, and is responsible for providing the humanitarian benefit of refugee resettlement to applicants in need of protection throughout the world while diligently protecting the U.S. homeland; (2) The Asylum Division, which manages the U.S. affirmative asylum process; and (3) The International Operations Division, which has 29 international field offices around the world and serves as the face of USCIS overseas.  The international offices play a critical role in extending immigration benefits to eligible individuals and exercising vigilance in matters of fraud detection and national security.

For more information or to sign up to attend the meeting (in person or by phone), click here.

Continue reading

Book Review: The Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry

by Jason Dzubow

Gal Beckerman’s new book, When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry, has been widely touted as the definitive work on the subject, and earlier this month, it was crowned Jewish Book of the Year by the Jewish Book Counsel.  As far as I know, Mr. Beckerman is the youngest author (age 34) to receive such an honor.

Oy vey! It's hard not to kvell over this book.

I just completed the book, and I fully agree that it deserves this high praise.  Mr. Beckerman eloquently explores the breadth and depth of the effort to free Soviet Jews, and makes a convincing argument that the movement launched the modern human rights era.  It’s a fascinating story, which alternates between Soviet Jewish activists, American Jews, who until now have received little recognition, and national figures, such as Senator Henry Jackson, co-author of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which linked human rights and American foreign policy (over the objection of President Nixon and Henry Kissinger).

But more than this–and like any great book–it taught me something about myself.  I had not really thought about it before, but the effort to help Soviet Jews is what initially sparked my own interest in human rights and social justice.  The book also reminded me of another struggle taking place as we speak–the effort to pass the DREAM Act.

First (since blogs are for navel gazing), a bit about me.  Like Mr. Beckerman, I had a “twin” Bar Mitzvah–In 1982, I was matched with a Jewish boy from the Soviet Union who was not permitted to have a Bar Mitzvah himself.  As my “twin,” he was mentioned several times during the ceremony, and was symbolically Bar Mitzvahed with me.  Whether he ever learned of this, I don’t know, and I basically forgot about him until I read Mr. Beckerman’s book.

Years later, during my first job after college, I helped find jobs for refugees who had settled in Philadelphia.  About half of them were from the Soviet Union, the product of the struggle to save the Soviet Jews.  While it was an interesting and rewarding position, the job was fairly prosaic, and I did not know much about the context of what I was doing.  Again, Mr. Beckerman’s book illuminated this chapter of my life.

Finally, while reading the book, I kept thinking about parallels between the Jews of the U.S.S.R. and DREAM Act students in the United States.  While Russian Jews wanted to leave and DREAM Act students want to stay, both groups faced (or face) arbitrary arrest at any moment, both lived (or currently live) in fear, both were viewed as dangerous outsiders, and both suffered these difficulties not because of something they did, but because of who they are.

I’m proud to say that the organized Jewish community–led by HIAS–has worked hard to help DREAM Act students.  It is a fitting continuation of the struggle to save Soviet Jews.  I hope Gal Beckerman’s superb book will remind us of the power of an organized community to work for social justice, and of the ethical imperative that all of us have to continue the struggle.

The best place to purchase the book (and read an interview with the author) is here.

Continue reading

1 Comment

DHS Plans Crackdown Against Smugglers in Central American

by Jason Dzubow

Many African asylum seekers enter the United States at the Mexican border.  Their journey to the U.S. is long and circuitous.  In East Africa (where some of my clients come from), people travel from Ethiopia, Eritrea or Somalia to Kenya.  From there, they go to South Africa and Brazil using false passports, and then through South America (sometimes by boat up the Amazon River!), to Central America, and then Mexico and the U.S.  Along the route, they are passed from one smuggler to the next.  Its big business for the smugglers: I’ve heard the trip costs between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00, and sometimes more.

A smuggler guides a couple illegal aliens across the border.

Last year, Abrahaley Fessahazion, an Eritrean based in Guatemala pleaded guilty to helping smuggle illegal aliens to the United States for financial gain.  Mr. Fessahazion was caught after he came to the U.S. and filed a false claim for political asylum.  He faces up to 10 years in prison.

Now, if the rumor mill is to be believed, DHS and at least one Latin American government are planning to arrest some additional smugglers in Central America.  DHS investigators have been interviewing smuggled aliens in the United States.  They have asked the aliens to identify photos of several smugglers based in Central American.  While most of the smugglers are from Latin America, at least one is African.  

It seems that DHS’s central concern involves the Somalis, who have long been viewed as a potential threat to national security (I’ve blogged about this issue here), and apparently DHS’s interrogation of the smuggled aliens has focused on Somali migrants.   

If the rumors are true, and certain Latin American governments are cooperating in the crackdown, life might be about to become difficult for the smugglers. 

Continue reading

5 Comments

Afghanistan’s Best and Brightest Seek Asylum Abroad

by Jason Dzubow

The Washington Post recently reported on a sharp spike in asylum seekers coming from Afghanistan.  The increase corresponds with the U.S. troop surge, and a feeling in the country that a peaceful future is no longer possible.

Sometimes "flight" is wiser than "fight."

The number of Afghan asylum seekers has surpassed the number of people fleeing Iraq and Somalia, making Afghanistan the leading producer of asylum seekers in the world.  In 2009, 27,057 Afghans sought official protection in foreign nations.   The numbers are expected to be somewhat lower for 2010, but Afghanistan will remain the largest source of asylum seekers in the world.  According to the Washington Post:

The vast majority of the refugees are young men in their teens, 20s and 30s, often well educated and with the financial means to pay $20,000 or more to human smugglers for passports and visas to Pakistan or Iran, then on to Europe, Australia, Canada or the United States.

Because of the difficulty in coming here, the United States received only about 113 Afghan asylum seekers in FY 2010. 

In my own practice (in Washington, DC), during the last two years, I have seen an increase in asylum cases from Afghanistan.  My firm filed 12 or 13 Afghan asylum cases in 2010 (so I suppose I represented about 10% of all Afghan asylum applicants in the United States for the year).  About 2/3 of my clients were men, and most of them were young, fluent in English, and very well educated.  Most of my male clients were journalists or somehow involved with the media.  Others were working closely with the U.S. military.  My female clients were women’s rights activists or “Westernized” students (or both).  All the cases that I worked on so far have been successful, which reflects the Asylum Office’s view that the situation in Afghanistan is dangerous (and hopefully also that we are doing a good job).

I feel that my clients face a dangerous–and often life threatening–situation in Afghanistan.  Several of them have had relatives murdered by the Taliban.  However, I can’t help but think that Afghanistan is worse off without these well-educated and committed men and women.  Before they left, they were contributing in important ways to the development of the country, and they were working against extremism.  Unfortunately, it is just such people who are targeted by the Taliban.  Indeed, these are the types of people that every repressive regime targets (the most well-known examples are the scientists, academics, and artists who fled from the Nazis).

Like many refugees before them, the Afghanis I represent have made a decision to leave families, friends, and promising careers to seek safety in the West.  While I feel sad that Afghanistan is losing so many talented individuals, I respect their choice to leave.  And while I hope the situation in their country improves, I am proud that our country offers protection to those Afghanis who need our assistance.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Czech Republic Subjects Asylum Seekers to a “Gay” Test

by Jason Dzubow

According to a report from Pink News, Europe’s Largest Gay News Service, the Czech Republic uses a test to determine whether asylum seekers are really gay.  The test involves a cleverly-named device known as a “phallometer,” which measures arousal.  The theory is that if a man (the test only works for people with phalluses) who claims to be gay becomes aroused while watching heterosexual pornography, then he is not really gay.  Yes, this is about as dumb as it sounds.

Although testing erections seems ridiculous, the problem of asylum seekers lying to obtain status is well known.  Certainly some asylum seekers falsely claim to be gay in order to win their cases.  I had a case once of a Russian woman who falsely claimed to be a lesbian.  Her case was denied by the Asylum Office, and she hired me to represent her in Immigration Court, where she was filing for adjustment of status based on her marriage (to a man).  We admitted that she lied on her asylum application and she applied for a waiver, which was granted.

It is not easy to detect false asylum claims, particularly when the claim involves delving into personal details, such as sexual orientation.  In cases I have worked on involving persecution based on sexual orientation, we submitted letters from friends and family attesting to the alien’s sexuality.  This has generally been sufficient for DHS, and they normally stipulate that the alien is gay.  Such an approach saves the alien (and everyone involved) the need to delve into personal details that can be embarrassing and humiliating for the asylum seeker, and is more consistent with international human rights law, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.

The mood ring--less intrusive and more accurate than the phallometer

Cases where the asylum seeker does not have anyone to attest to his orientation are more problematic.  An alien’s credible testimony alone could be sufficient to support a finding that the alien is gay.  Perhaps if the alien seeks counseling for past persecution or discrimination, the care-giver could attest to his sexual orientation.  In some cases, courts might accept a lie detector test–at least it is less intrusive than a phallometer.

As for the Czech Republic, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights states that phallometric testing violates international human rights laws, which prohibit torture and inhumane or degrading treatment, and is particularly inappropriate for asylum seekers because they “might have suffered abuse due to their sexual orientation and are thus specifically constrained by this kind of exposure.”

Such a test seems degrading and insulting, not to mention completely useless for revealing a person’s sexual orientation.  Hopefully, now that the practice has come to light, it will be discontinued.

Special thanks to David Cleveland for alerting us to this issue.

Continue reading

4 Comments

Can the Mandaeans Be Saved?

by Jason Dzubow

Followers of the Mandaean religion have lived in Iraq for well over 1,000 years.  However, since the U.S. invasion in 2003, Mandaeans have faced all sorts of persecution from their fellow Iraqis, including murder, kidnapping, rape, confiscation of property and forced conversion.  Their numbers have dropped from about 60,000 in the 1990’s to less than 5,000 today.  The Mandaeans have fled to Kurdistan, Jordan, Syria, the United States, and other countries. 

A Mandaean Baptism Ceremony.

While the Iraqi Mandaeans are able to resettle in other countries, the concern is that they will be disbursed throughout the world and their religion will die out. 

The end of the Mandaean religion would be a great loss.  From a New York Times article on the Mandaeans (re-posted on Red Ice Creations):

The Mandeans are the only surviving Gnostics from antiquity, cousins of the people who produced the Nag Hammadi writings like the Gospel of Thomas, a work that sheds invaluable light on the many ways in which Jesus was perceived in the early Christian period. The Mandeans have their own language (Mandaic, a form of Aramaic close to the dialect of the Babylonian Talmud), an impressive body of literature, and a treasury of cultural and religious traditions amassed over two millennia of living in the southern marshes of present-day Iraq and Iran.

Practitioners of a religion at least as old as Christianity, the Mandeans have witnessed the rise of Islam; the Mongol invasion; the arrival of Europeans, who mistakenly identified them as “Christians of St. John,” because of their veneration of John the Baptist; and, most recently, the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, who drained the marshes after the first gulf war, an ecological catastrophe equivalent to destroying the Everglades. They have withstood everything — until now.

The Mandaean religion is pacifistic, and followers are not allowed to carry weapons, even for self defense.  Until the 2003 war, most of the world’s Mandaeans lived in Iraq.  Now the insular community has been divided into small groups and resettled as refugees.  Such groups are too small to create sustainable communities, and the fear is that the dispersion is the beginning of the end for the Mandaeans.

In the U.S., one of the largest refugee populations of Mandaeans is in Boston, which is home to about 450 individuals.  Mandaean activists hope to resettle enough refugees there to create a sustainable community.  According to the Boston Globe, nations don’t take in refugees from just a single ethnic or religious group, and the receiving countries face capacity issues.

In this instance, the UN and the receiving countries should make a greater effort to resettle the Mandaeans in larger number in order to create sustainable communities.  If not, this ancient religion could vanish forever.

Continue reading

3 Comments

Burmese Artist Chaw Ei Thein Seeks Asylum in the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow
Burmese artist Chaw Ei Thein.

According to the World Policy Blog, Burmese artist Chaw Ei Thein has filed for political asylum in the United States.  Ms. Thien’s visual and performing arts have challenged the dictatorship in her country, and she faced arrest at least once for a performance art piece that her government found objectionable (the Burmese–or Myanmar–leadership is not known for its sense of humor).  Apparently, Ms. Thein has been in the United States for some time and has been receiving assistance from freeDimensional, an organization that helps exiled artists.  You can view some of Ms. Thein’s art on her blog.

I’ve always felt that there is a connection between art and exile.  Some of the earliest written literature (from ancient Sumer) are lamentations for destroyed cities.  One of my favorite musicians is Enrico Macias, an Algerian Jew who was exiled from his country during the war of independence.  On the boat ride to France, he wrote the song “Adieu mon pays” (Goodbye my country).  And a recent book by Joseph Horowitz, Artists in Exile, explores how refugees from war and revolution have transformed the performing arts in American.  So it seems Ms. Thein is in good company.

Continue reading

1 Comment