Asylum for the Pakistani Doctor Who Helped Get Osama Bin Laden?

by Jason Dzubow

By now, the story of Shakil Afridi is well known.  The Pakistani doctor ran a vaccination program in Pakistan that served as cover for his real mission–to help the CIA track down Osama Bin Laden.  According to Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA (and current Secretary of Defense), Dr. Afridi’s contribution was crucial to finding Bin Laden and terminating him with extreme prejudice.

The CIA Vaccine Program: We have ways of making you talk!

As a reward for helping rid the world of its number one terrorist, the government of Pakistan arrested Dr. Afridi and charged him with high treason, a crime punishable by death. Pakistan has also arrested Dr. Afridi’s wife for good measure.

I suppose from Pakistan’s point of view, Dr. Afridi should have informed the Pakistani government, not the U.S. government, about Mr. Bin Laden.  But I also suppose that–had he done so–Mr. Bin Laden would still be alive and well today.

So far, Pakistan has refused U.S. demands to release the good doctor, and now Congress is getting into the act.  A bill sponsored by Dana Rohrabacher, the Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight, calls for granting citizenship to Dr. Afridi.  Congressman Rohrabacher states:

My bill would grant [Dr. Afridi] US citizenship and send a direct and powerful message to those in the Pakistani government and military who protected the mastermind of 9/11 for all those years and who are now seeking retribution on those who helped to execute bin Laden….  This bill shows the world that America does not abandon its friends.

There are a few too many assumptions in the Congressman’s condemnation of Pakistan for my taste, but I agree with the general sentiment.  It is outrageous that our supposed ally would treat Dr. Afridi (and his wife) in this manner.  While Pakistan’s pride might have been hurt by our Abbottabad Operation, the fact is, Osama Bin Laden was living right under their noses and they did nothing about it.  Rather than lash out at the man who helped find Osama Bin Laden, they would do better to look inward and examine the shocking intelligence failure that allowed Mr. Bin Laden to live for years practically next door to Pakistan’s top military academy.

Whether the efforts of the State Department and Congress bear fruit, we shall see.  But certainly we should not abandoned the man who helped us eliminate Mr. Bin Laden.

As a side note, there are many other foreign nationals who have helped us in our fight against terrorism, often at great personal risk.  So far, we have not done right by most of them (I’ve written about this here).  We should not abandoned these people either.

Continue reading

Most Canadian Refugee Judges Fail Re-Appointment Test

by Jason Dzubow

As Canada implements changes to its asylum program under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, its refugee judges are required to apply for new positions that will commence in June 2012.  The refugee judges are currently political appointees.  To qualify for the new positions, applicants must take a multiple choice and written exam, and pass an interview.

Canadian judges spent too much time partying in high school.

According to the Canadian Star, out of 63 refugee judges, “only 10 have passed the exams and screening process, while nine are awaiting final interviews.”  Of the remaining 44 judges, “[o]ne was screened out immediately, 24 failed the multiple-choice and written exams, six did not show for the exams, seven were eliminated at interviews, and six withdrew from the process.”  Forgetting judges that decided not to re-apply, this means that over 50% of politically appointed refugee judges in Canada failed the exams or the interview. 

The Star notes that the “refugee judges’ poor performance has raised concerns about the quality of decisions they have made.”  No kidding.

So what are the implications for us, down here on the civilized side of the border?

First, it is pretty clear that we have problems of our own.  The important article Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication makes clear that decisions by Immigration Judges (and other adjudicators) often depend on who is making the decision rather than the facts of the case.  The authors found statistically significant evidence that an IJ’s work experience prior to appointment affects his or her decision-making in a particular case.  The obvious implication is that the system can easily–and subtle–be manipulated through political appointments.

This is not merely an academic point.  Just last week EOIR swore in three new judges.  Two of the three have experience with DHS or INS and all three have experience as administrative adjudicators.  From their bios, it appears that only one of the three has ever had any experience representing immigrants, and that was almost 20 years ago.  While these new IJs all seem like well-qualified individuals, their selection from within the government raises concerns, particularly in light of the biases revealed in the Refugee Roulette article.

So what is to be done? 

The authors of Refugee Roulette basically recommend more and better training.  That certainly makes sense.  Here are a few other ideas:

– The BIA should publish more decisions, to provide more guidance to Immigration Judges.

– The selection process should be broadened and more effort should be made to hire judges from the private and non-profit sectors.

– IJs whose grant or denial rate is out of whack with the mainstream should receive additional training and additional scrutiny to ensure that their decisions are complying with the law.

Maybe the lesson from Canada is that, with judges who are essentially political appointees, we need to be extra careful–and take the necessary extra steps–to ensure that they are qualified and able to properly adjudicate immigration cases and interpret the immigration law.

Continue reading

Asylum Applications Up in 2011; Arab Spring Has Modest Impact

by Jason Dzubow

Asylum claims in “industrialized” countries were up 17% during the first half of 2011, according to the United Nations:

An estimated 198,300 asylum applications were recorded during the first six months of 2011 in the 44 countries included in this report.  This is 17 per cent more than during the same period 2010 (169,300), and is nearly identical to the number of applications recorded during the second half of 2010 (197,600).

Coincidentally, asylum lawyers received a 17% raise in the first half of 2011.

Applications in North America were up 25% and the U.S. received more asylum seekers than any other country (36,400).  The second most popular receiving country was France (26,100), followed by Germany (20,100), Sweden (12,600), and the United Kingdom (12,200).

The top five “source” countries for asylum seekers for the first half of 2011 were: Afghanistan (15,300), China (11,700), Serbia and Kosovo (10,300), Iraq (10,100), and Iran (7,600).

Asylum seekers from countries experiencing the Arab Spring are up, but not as significantly as European leaders had feared.  According to the UN:

The high­est relative increase was recorded for Tunisian citizens whose asylum claims increased from 410 to more than 4,600, primarily in the number of arrivals in Italy by boat.  The first half of 2011 saw more Tunisians lodging asylum claims than during the entire period from 2004 to 2010 put together.  Similarly, there was a major increase in asylum applications lodged by Libyan citizens, with 2,000 claims during the first half of 2011 compared to only 800 during the whole of 2010.

While these increases are large in percentage terms (according to my–probably questionable–math, Tunisian claims are up by more than 1,100%), the relative numbers are not all that dramatic.  Perhaps this demonstrates that when people have an outlet for their political aspirations, they tend to remain in their home countries.  As the Arab Spring grinds along in countries like Syria and Yemen, we can expect those countries to produce greater numbers of asylum seekers–When people have no hope and when governments murder their citizens instead of listen to them, people have no choice but to flee to safer lands.

Continue reading

Game Show for Rejected Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

Those wild and crazy Dutchmen are at it again.  PRI reports on a new game show where rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands compete for US$6,000.00 to help them resettle in their country of origin.  Losing contestants receive a bag of tulips and a bullet proof vest. 

The show, “Out of the Netherlands,” is actually a “harsh criticism of the Dutch government’s conservative immigration policy,” where asylum seekers are held in limbo for long periods before being deported.  Contestants answer questions about Dutch culture, cuisine, food, and language:

[The] program’s creators attempted to show how Dutch these contenders are.  “We don’t present sad stories, we want to show who these people are, and that it is a shame to let them go.  They are real rejected asylum seekers.  They are really leaving.”  The show’s participants are all young and highly educated immigrants who are facing a grim future in their countries of origin.

Maybe if Richard Dawson hosted "Out of the Netherlands," I could get behind the idea.

So I suppose the show is meant to be a hip, ironic commentary on Dutch society that aims to educate the public about the value of the asylum seekers to Netherlands society.  Nevertheless, I can’t help but find this idea idiotic.  Plus, I remember a cooler, hipper version of this show called Running Man, hosted by Richard Dawson (Also starring Jesse Ventura!  And yes, it also starred everyone’s favorite product of Nazi gene manipulation, Arnold Schwarzenegger).  One difference was that Running Man was a show where convicted criminals–as opposed to rejected asylum seekers–competed for their freedom.  The losers died in the process.  Another difference was that Running Man was fiction while “Out of the Netherlands” features real-life asylum seekers returning to real-life countries where they face harm.  

For me, the ultimate authority on exploitative game shows was an episode of the old TV series Insight, a fictional drama that “illuminat[ed] the contemporary search for meaning, freedom, and love.”  In the episode, teams of two family members compete in a game show to see who is more willing to hurt their own family member.  Through a series of escalating challenges, different teams drop out after they are not able to hurt each other.  For example, one team drops out after a brother refuses to insult a sister.  Another team drops out after a son refuses to slap his mother.  The winning team is a husband and wife.  The husband agrees to put a bullet in a revolver, spin the chamber, aim it at his wife’s head, and pull the trigger.  The chamber is empty, the wife lives, and the couple wins the contest.  It is clear from the wife’s reaction, though, that her husband’s willingness to risk her life in order to win money has killed her love for him.  Thus, even the “winner” of such an exploitative show has not really won. 

I suppose my point is, there are ways to inform the public about the issue of rejected asylum seekers without exploiting their situation.  Somehow I doubt “Out of the Netherlands” will achieve that goal. 

Continue reading

1 Comment

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

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

UK Scraps DNA Testing for Asylum Seekers

by Jason Dzubow

A short-lived attempt by Great Britain to determine the nationality of asylum seekers was unceremoniously dumped after it became clear that the testing was of no scientific value. 

In 2009, the Brits started a (supposedly) voluntary program to test the DNA of asylum seekers from certain African countries.  The idea was to reduce fraudulent applications where the asylum seeker claimed to be from a country other than his own (for example, a Kenyan might claim to be from Somalia in order to increase the likelihood that he would receive asylum).  From the beginning, scientists such as University of Leicester’s Alec Jeffreys expressed serious doubts about whether DNA could really determine a person’s country of origin.  Said Mr. Jeffreys:

The [British] Borders Agency is clearly making huge and unwarranted assumptions about population structure in Africa; the extensive research needed to determine population structure and the ability or otherwise of DNA to pinpoint ethnic origin in this region simply has not been done. Even if it did work (which I doubt), assigning a person to a population does not establish nationality – people move! The whole proposal is naive and scientifically flawed.

Now it seems the government has ended the program and even shelved its plans to complete an internal review of the program’s efficacy. 

A second aspect of the program–isotope analysis–has also been canned.  Under this program, the government would analyze hair and nail samples to determine what chemical isotopes they contained.  The government could then (supposedly) determine where the person had recently been.  So for example, if a Somali woman had been living in Italy for the last five years, and then traveled to England to claim asylum, the government could use isotope analysis to show that the woman had not recently been to Somalia.  It is unclear how accurate this analysis is, or how many asylum seekers lie about their country of origin. 

While isotope analysis might provide limited assistance in this regard, it seems to me an easier and cheaper approach is to determine whether the person is fluent in a language from the claimed country of origin.  Of course, like isotopes and DNA, language fluency does not necessarily conform to national borders, but it is probably about as reliable–and much less expensive.

So what, then, is the lesson for us on this side of the Atlantic?  I have not heard about proposals here to use DNA testing or isotope analysis.  Given the lack of success in Great Britain, I imagine that we will not be adopting these methods anytime soon.

Continue reading

Ecuador Cracks Down on Alien Smuggling to the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow

Not long ago, the Washington Post reported on one of my clients from Eritrea, who was smuggled through a dozen countries before entering the U.S. and gaining asylum.  The article states that my client’s “epic trip underscores the challenge of protecting U.S. borders in the face of agile networks of smugglers, corrupt officials who arrange travel documents and desperate immigrants willing to pay thousands of dollars for the journey.”  These networks worry U.S. officials:

“While the majority of aliens smuggled into the U.S. probably do not pose a risk to national security, the problem is terrorists could exploit these smuggling travel networks,” said James C. Spero, deputy assistant director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which enforces immigration laws. “It is a major concern for us.”

Recently, there seems to have been some progress in combating the smuggling networks.  The Ecuadoran newspaper El Universo reports that on March 10, a joint Ecuadoran and Columbian raid captured Yaee Dawit Tadese, a/k/a Jack Flora, an Eritrean smuggler, and 66 other individuals from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.  Mr. Tadese managed a network that trafficked migrants from Africa to the United States, using two routes running through either Ecuador or Venezuela.  According to the website InSightCrime.org, Mr. Tadese was deported to the U.S. on March 12, where he faces terrorism, and drug and human trafficking charges (the article also reports on a rumor that Mr. Tadese is Osama bin Laden’s cousin, but that seems a bit far fetched).

Yaee Dawit Tadese: Osama bin Laden's long lost cousin?

It remains to be seen how much these arrests will impact the flow of illegal migrants to the U.S., but I imagine it will have an effect–at least for a while.

In related news, a change in the visa requirements in Ecuador might also reduce the number of migrants passing through that country en route to the United States.  In 2008, Ecuador eliminated visa requirements for most countries.  Since that time, according to InSightCrime.org, the country has “seen the growth of Colombian, Russian, and Chinese organized crime groups operating within its borders.”  Ecuador’s “lax visa policies may have also increased the smuggling of Asian and African migrants from the Andean nation to the U.S.”

Late last year, “Ecuador created visa requirements for nine countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia.”  This change may also reduce the number of migrants passing through Ecuador on their way to the U.S. 

Given that it takes several months for people to travel from Ecuador through Central America and Mexico to the U.S., I suspect we will begin to see the effects of Mr. Tadese’s arrest and the new visa requirements in the near future.  Will these developments reduce the number of people arriving illegally at the U.S.-Mexican border, or will they simply cause the migrants to seek out alternative routes?  We will know soon enough.

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

Fifty Million Environmental Refugees by 2020

by Jason Dzubow

A recent article in the Huffington Post reports on last week’s annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society.  Experts at the meeting warned that, “In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees.”

At least some people are benefitting from global warming.

“When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate,” stated University of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado at the AAAS meeting.  She and other speakers outlined how climate change is impacting both food security and food safety.  Southern Europe is already seeing a sharp increase in what has long been a slow but steady flow of migrants from Africa.

Of course, asylum is not available to people who fear return to their country on account of environmental disaster.  In the U.S., we have provided Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) to people from certain countries that have faced natural disasters.  Most recently, after the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Haitians in the United States were granted TPS so that they could remain in the United States until conditions improve.

If predictions are accurate, and more people migrate to escape the impact of global warming, the current system of asylum, refugee resettlement, and TPS may prove inadequate.  Long term environmental change may make it necessary for millions of people to migrate, and impossible for them ever to return home.  If the migrations predicted at the AAAS meeting actually materialize, the U.S. and other developed countries–which are presumably more able to deal with the effects of climate change–will need to re-think how they deal with such large numbers of refugees. 

In this case, it seems to me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  The question is: Do our governments have the political will to do something about the problem?  Let’s hope so.     

Continue reading

1 Comment

Mubarak Is Not Eligible for Asylum

by Jason Dzubow
When your photo is crossed out AND burned, you know it's time to go.

After 30 years of autocratic rule, the people of Egypt have forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign.  There has been much talk about Mr. Mubarak seeking asylum abroad, but does he qualify for asylum under international law?  I think the answer is an unqualified “No!”

A person who faces a well founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or particular social group, may qualify for asylum.  However, one who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person” on account of a protected ground is barred from asylum.  Under this provision, Mr. Mubarak is barred from receiving asylum.

Here are some reports about Mr. Mubarak’s Egypt.  First, from the U.S. State Department:

The government’s respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas.  The government limited citizens’ right to change their government and continued a state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1967.  Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity….  Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention.

Amnesty International reports:

The government continued to use state of emergency powers to detain peaceful critics and opponents….  Some were held under administrative detention orders; others were sentenced to prison terms after unfair trials before military courts.  Torture and other ill-treatment remained widespread in police cells, security police detention centres and prisons, and in most cases were committed with impunity.

And this, from the Daily Beast:

Few know the cruelty of Mubarak’s regime better than [Kareem] Amer, who spent the last four years in prison for criticizing the dictator and “insulting” Islam on his blog.  When I asked him to describe Mubarak’s record, he said: “Many human-rights activists and journalists were imprisoned during his reign.  Some were beaten and tortured.  Others were abducted or disappeared without a trace.  The most important of these incidents was the disappearance of the Egyptian journalist Reda Helal in the heart of Cairo in 2003.  Many believe the security services were behind the abduction because of his political views.”

Mr. Mubarak has been an ally of the U.S. and he respected the peace treaty with Israel, but he was a human rights abuser who held power by torturing and killing his own people.  With such a record, it is clear that Mr. Mubarak would be barred from asylum under international law.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Ethiopian Asylum Seekers Die Along the Smuggling Route

by Jason Dzubow

I’ve written a number of times about the route East African asylum seekers take to reach the United States.  The journey usually takes them through Africa to South Africa, and then to South America, Central America, and finally the U.S.  Along the way, the asylum seekers are passed from one smuggler to the next.  Because I deal with the people who make it here, I don’t usually think about those who do not survive the trip.

Voice of America reports that on February 2, eight Ethiopian asylum seekers suffocated to death in a closed container truck while attempting to reach South Africa:

The UN refugee agency [UNHCR] said the Ethiopian asylum seekers had been living in the Maratane refugee camp in northern Mozambique, from where they embarked on their ill-fated journey.  The driver of the truck in which they were traveling reportedly only realized the eight had suffocated when he made a stop at Mocuba, after seven hours of driving from the camp.

Statistics on asylum seeker deaths are hard to come by, so the magnitude of the problem is not well known, but I’d venture to guess that the number of deaths is quite high.  I sometimes hear anecdotal evidence from my clients about this problem.  For example, an Eritrean client recently told me about two Eritrean women who drowned while crossing a swamp in Panama.  I could not find statistics for asylum seekers coming to the U.S., but I did find some information about Britain and Australia:

The New Statesman report that 77 asylum seekers died in Great Britain during the last four years: Of the deaths, more than a third (28) were suicides following rejected asylum claims. Seven people died after being denied healthcare for “preventable medical problems.” Seven more died in police custody, while 15 lost their lives during “highly risky” attempts to enter the country. Seven were killed in racist street attacks, four after deportation to a country where they feared for their safety, two as a result of destitution, and four because they had been forced into dangerous work in the black economy. 

A website called Abolish Foreignness reports that between 2000 and 2010, 1,053 asylum seekers died in Australia or en route to that country.  The majority of the deaths were from people drowned at sea.

It is probably impossible to know how many asylum seekers die on the long and dangerous journey to the United States.  But it is clear that, despite the risk, many people are willing to make the trip.  

Continue reading

1 Comment

New Asylum Law in Mexico Could Reduce the Flow of Refugees to the U.S.

by Jason Dzubow

Mexican President Felipe Calderon last week signed into law a new provision meant to bring Mexican asylum law in line with international standards.  Fox News Latino reports that the law was drafted taking into account the model legislation from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Cantinflas
Until recently, Mexican asylum law was enforced by this guy.

“From now on,” President Calderon said, “Mexico will consider applications for refugee status from any person who cites a fear of being persecuted for his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.”  Gender persecution will also be considered legitimate grounds for an asylum claim, he said.  Officially recognized refugees will have a right to work and to access health care and education.

UNHCR hailed the move:

Mexico has long been a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol and the country has a history of protecting asylum-seekers and refugees.  But, until now, Mexico lacked a specific legal framework for dealing with refugees as previous laws did not comply with international standards.

This law conforms to such standards.  It includes important principles such as non-refoulement (non forced returns); non-discrimination; no penalty for irregular entry; family unity; best interests of the child; and confidentiality.

If–and it is a big if–the new law is properly implemented, it could have an impact on the flow of asylum seekers into the U.S. via our Southern border.  As I’ve discussed in this blog previously, African, Chinese, and other asylum seekers enter the United States at the Mexican border and then file for asylum in the U.S.  If these people pass through Mexico without requesting asylum, it could negatively impact their chances for success in the United States (for example, they might be deemed less credible).  If they request asylum in Mexico, and their request is granted, they would be ineligible for asylum in the U.S., as they would be “firmly resettled” in Mexico for purposes of the immigration law. 

In addition, the U.S. currently has a “safe third-country” agreement with Canada, meaning that people denied asylum in Canada cannot apply for asylum here, and vice versa (at least that is how the agreement is supposed to work).  If the Mexican asylum law meets international standards, perhaps we will enter into such an agreement with Mexico.  This would further reduce the possibility for asylum seekers to pass through Mexico and then seek asylum in the United States.

The impact of the Mexican law on the flow of asylum seekers into the United States will depend on how effectively the new law is implemented.  Given the Mexican government’s current challenges, I’m a bit skeptical of its ability to live up to the high standards it has set for itself.  I suppose we’ll have to wait and see.

Continue reading

18 Comments

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