How Halloween Helps Save the World (or at Least Some Refugee Children)

by Jason Dzubow

World War II left approximately 75 million people dead and up to 20 million displaced. Many of these displaced persons, or DPs, could not return to their countries. Hundreds of thousands were resettled to new homes in Western Europe and the United States. Two years after the war, there were still 850,000+ people living in DP camps. And as late as 1953–eight years after the War–more than 250,000 people continued to live as refugees. Of course, many DPs during the post-War period were children.

Through Trick-or-Treat UNICEF, the undead can help the living.
Through Trick-or-Treat UNICEF, the undead can help the living.

The civilian response to the DP crisis was led by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, which helped resettle hundreds of thousands of refugees. Private individuals were moved by the humanitarian tragedy as well.

In the Autumn of 1949, Mary Emma Allison was in downtown Philadelphia when she bumped into a children’s Halloween parade. She followed the parade into Wanamaker’s Department Store where she met a cow (yes, a cow). She then followed the kids and the cow to a booth for UNICEF, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund. It turns out, the parade was promoting a campaign to send powdered milk to needy children overseas (hence, the cow).

After her chance encounter, Ms. Allison and her husband, Clyde Allison, a Presbyterian Minister, organized Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF. The idea was that if kids were already going around the neighborhood collecting candy, they might as well do some good while they’re at it.

The venture started modestly enough during Halloween in 1950, when the Allison’s three children collected money from their community. That first year, they raised $17.00 in nickels and dimes, which they donated to UNICEF (although the acronym has remained the same, UNICEF is now the United Nations Children’s Fund). The money went to help children displaced by World War II. In those days, a dime was all it took to buy 50 glasses of milk for needy children in Europe.

The effort grew from there. In 1960, President Kennedy noted “UNICEF has captured the imagination of our people, especially our nation’s children… ” Seven years later, President Johnson signed a proclamation that designated Halloween as National UNICEF Day. By the time Ms. Allison died, a few days before Halloween in 2010, Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF had raised more than $160 million. The program has continued since then, and by last Halloween, it had raised over $175 million. The money buys food, clean water, milk, medicine, and much else for children in more than 150 countries. These days, a $5-donation to UNICEF buys five days of food for a malnourished child; $100, measles protection for 100 kids; $400, a pump to give an entire village water.

Many of the children helped by UNICEF are refugees, and they have special needs. In Syria, for example, UNICEF is trying to prevent millions of children displaced by the war from becoming a lost generation. The agency has been on the ground since the conflict began, working with other organizations to provide education, physical protection, psychological support, and clothing to Syrian refugee children in Iraq, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and other countries. UNICEF also helps immunize children against disease and provides millions of people with access to safe drinking water.

Trick-or-Treat for UNICEF is a great way for kids to help kids. After 65 years, the reasons for the program remain constant: To make Halloween meaningful as well as fun, to protect the lives of the world’s youngest and most vulnerable, and to inspire kids to discover their own ability to help other children like themselves. If you’d like to learn more, please visit the UNICEF website, here.

Continue reading

2 Comments

Gay Rights and the UN: One Step Back, One Step Forward

by Jason Dzubow

Sexual orientation is all about identity: Are you gay or straight or bi or trans or questioning or something else?  It seems that the United Nations has some identity issues of its own when it comes to LGBT rights.    

This past September, a “traditional values” resolution sponsored by Russia passed in the UN Human Rights Counsel, 25-15, with seven abstentions (the U.S. voted against).  The text of the resolution and a list of countries and their votes can be found here.  The resolution reaffirms that “everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms… without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.”  The basic problem is that this list purposefully omits the reference to sexual orientation.  Thus (as usual), the term “traditional values” is code for “anti-gay.”  

The UN has a split personality when it comes to gay rights.

While this particular resolution will probably have little effect, I fear it is an unfortunate bellwether of member states’ positions on LGBT rights and protecting LGBT refugees.  As an aside, my first job as a practicing lawyer was at Catholic Community Services in New Jersey.  I remember being surprised that the Catholic Church–which generally opposes gay rights–was assisting gay asylum seekers.  When you think about it, this is not entirely inconsistent: While the Church opposes gay rights, it also opposes persecution of gay people.  My concern with the UN resolution is that it might be a harbinger of something more sinister–the contraction of protection for people facing persecution on account of their sexual orientation (in 2008, the UN recognized that sexual orientation was a basis for protection under the Refugee Convention).  

But as you might have guessed from the title of this piece, the news from the UN is not all bad. 

Late last month, UNHCR issued new guidelines concerning claims to refugee status based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The guidelines state:

A proper analysis as to whether a LGBTI applicant is a refugee under the 1951 Convention needs to start from the premise that applicants are entitled to live in society as who they are and need not hide that.  As affirmed by the position adopted in a number of jurisdictions, sexual orientation and/or gender identity are fundamental aspects of human identity that are either innate or immutable, or that a person should not be required to give up or conceal.

The guidelines recognize persecution by governments, society, and family members, and also note that laws criminalizing homosexuality can rise to the level of persecution.

The guidelines also make recommendations concerning refugee status determinations for LGBT applicants.  Most of the recommendations seem like common sense, but I think they are helpful and–given the sentiments of many UN member states concerning LGBT people–worth repeating.  The recommendations include:

– An open and reassuring environment is often crucial to establishing trust between the interviewer and applicant
– Interviewers and decision makers need to maintain an objective approach so that they do not reach conclusions based on stereotypical, inaccurate or inappropriate perceptions of LGBTI individuals
– The interviewer and the interpreter must avoid expressing, whether verbally or through body language, any judgement about the applicant’s sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior or relationship pattern
– Specialized training on the particular aspects of LGBTI refugee claims for decision makers, interviewers, interpreters, advocates and legal representatives is crucial
– Specific requests made by applicants in relation to the gender of interviewers or interpreters should be considered favorably
– Questioning about incidents of sexual violence needs to be conducted with the same sensitivity as in the case of any other sexual assault victims

The U.S. government is ahead of the game in this matter.  In January 2012, USCIS (with help from Immigration Equality) issued a training module to help Asylum Officers with LGBT cases.

So it seems that the UN is of two minds about LGBT rights.  There is no doubt that many countries and societies violently oppress and murder people just because of their sexual orientation.  For their sake, I hope the progressive states continue to pressure the UN to move forward on LGBT issues.

Continue reading

2 Comments

UN Report: 4.3 Million Newly Displaced People in 2011

by Jason Dzubow

According to a new United Nations report, 2011 was the worst year for refugees since 2000: 4.3 million people were newly displaced; 800,000 of them fled their countries and became refugees (the remaining people were displaced but did not leave their countries, so they do not meet the definition of “refugee;” rather, they are considered IDPs – internally displaced persons). 

At the end of 2011, there were 42.5 million displaced people worldwide.  That is more than the entire population of Canada.  The numbers break down as follows: 15.2 million refugees; 26.4 million IDPs; and 895,000 people in the process of seeking asylum. According to the UN:

“2011 saw suffering on an epic scale. For so many lives to have been thrown into turmoil over so short a space of time means enormous personal cost for all who were affected,” said the UN High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres. “We can be grateful only that the international system for protecting such people held firm for the most part and that borders stayed open. These are testing times.”

There are more displaced people in the world than the entire population of Canada, though the Canadians probably make more noise.

The UN reports that Afghanistan remains the biggest producer of refugees (2.7 million) followed by Iraq (1.4 million), Somalia (1.1 million), Sudan (500,000) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (491,000).  This is particularly sad given that the top two countries producing refugees are places where we went to war.  Obviously, our efforts have not made Iraq and Afghanistan safe, at least not in the minds of the millions of people who have decided that they cannot return home. 

Viewed on a 10-year basis, the UN report shows several worrying trends: “One is that forced displacement is affecting larger numbers of people globally, with the annual level exceeding 42 million people for each of the last five years.”  “Another is that a person who becomes a refugee is likely to remain as one for many years – often stuck in a camp or living precariously in an urban location.”  “Of the 10.4 million refugees under UNHCR’s mandate, almost three quarters (7.1 million) have been in exile for at least five years awaiting a solution.”

The news was not all bad:

Despite the high number of new refugees, the overall figure was lower than the 2010 total of 43.7 million [displaced] people, due mainly to the offsetting effect of large numbers of IDPs returning home: 3.2 million, the highest rate of returns of IDPs in more than a decade.

However, among refugees, “2011 was the third lowest year for returns (532,000) in a decade.”

Despite the high number of refugees, the U.S. resettled less refugees in 2011 than in any year since 2007.  In 2011, we resettled 56,419 refugees, which is far less than the proposed ceiling of 80,000 people.  For the years before 2011, the figures are as follows: 2010 – 73,311; 2009 – 74,656; 2008 – 60,193; and 2007 – 48,281.  According to the Obama Administration:

[The admissions total for FY 2011 were] lower, however, due largely to the introduction of additional security checks during the year, including pre-departure checks shortly before refugees travel to the U.S., instituted mid-year, that enhance the vetting of applicants against intelligence and law enforcement information.

The proposed ceiling for FY 2012 is 76,000 refugees.  We will see how many people are actually resettled in the U.S.  Given the high number of displaced people worldwide–and considering how many of them are displaced directly as a result of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq–it seems to me that this is the least we can do to assist such people.

Continue reading

UNHCR: Number of Asylum Applications Up Sharply in 2011

by Jason Dzubow

A new report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) shows that asylum claims in industrialized countries have increased 20% from 2010 to 2011.  The United States continued to receive the most asylum seekers among the countries surveyed: approximately 74,000 asylum seekers in 2011.  This compares to approximately 55,500 asylum seekers for 2010, a 33% increase (among all countries, South Africa received the most asylum seekers).

The increase in asylum seekers to the U.S. is due largely to higher numbers from three countries: China (+20%), Mexico (+94%), and India (+241%).

With all the new refugees, we should at least get some interesting food joints.

The U.S. receives more asylum seekers from China than from any other country.  In 2010, we received 12,850 asylum seekers from China.  In 2011, we received 15,450 asylum seekers from China, an increase of 2,600 people or about 20%.  The large numbers are probably due to special provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that provide for asylum for victims of forced family planning–these provisions were created specifically to assist people from China, and they certainly seem to have encouraged Chinese nationals to seek asylum here.  Indeed, of the 24,400 Chinese asylum seekers worldwide, the U.S. received about 63% of all cases.  This is a very high number, given our physical distance from China.   If these numbers continue to rise, I wonder whether it will cause us to re-think our decision to grant asylum to victims of forced family planning.

The biggest numerical increase was among Mexicans seeking asylum in the U.S.  In 2010, there were 4,225 asylum seekers from Mexico.  In 2011, we received 8,186 asylum seekers from Mexico.  I recently wrote a post where I expressed doubt about the reported increase in Mexican asylum claims.  If the UNHCR report is correct, I was wrong and the number of asylum seekers has increased dramatically in the last year.  We will see whether the grant rate for Mexicans–which has been about 2%–will increase with the new crop of asylum seekers.  If this trend continues, it will certainly place a burden on our asylum system, and we might need to re-evaluate how we deal with the new influx.

In terms of relative increases, India had the largest increase: Up 241% from last year (the U.S. received 720 Indian asylum seekers in 2010 and 2,457 in 2011).  As far as I can tell, Indian cases are very diverse: political persecution, religious persecution, and sexual orientation, among other basis.  Why the dramatic increase in India asylum seekers?  I have no idea.  One “push factor” that seems inapplicable to Indian cases is the economy–India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.  One year does not make a trend, so we will have to wait and see how many Indian nationals seek asylum in the U.S. in 2012.

Aside from the “big three,” there were major increases from El Salvador (2010–2,703; 2011–4,011) and Guatemala (2010–2,235; 2011–3,363), and smaller increases from Honduras, Haiti, and Nepal.  Rounding out the top 10 source countries for asylum seekers in the U.S. were Ethiopia (which saw a small drop in numbers) and Egypt, which appeared on the U.S. top ten list for the first time, perhaps as a result of difficulties related to the Arab Spring.

Worldwide, the top source countries for asylum seekers were Afghanistan (approximately 35,700 asylum seekers, up 34% from 2010), China (24,400; up 13% from 2010), Iraq (23,500; up 14% from 2010, but significantly down from 2008 when there were 40,400 claims), Serbia (21,200; down 28% from 2010), and Pakistan (18,100; up 66% from last year).

Given world population growth (there are a lot more people than there used to be), general economic malaise, and the dismal state of human rights in many countries, it is not surprising that the number of asylum seekers is increasing.  How we address these problems and how we treat people who come to us for help are some of the defining issues of our time.

Continue reading

2 Comments

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

Remembering Louis Henkin – Architect of the 1951 Refugee Convention

by Jason Dzubow

Louis Henkin, a leading scholar in international law and foreign policy, professor emeritus at Columbia Law School, and one of the principal architects of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, died last week at age 92.

Louis Henkin (November 11, 1917 - October 14, 2010)

Prof. Henkin led a long and eventful life.  He was born Eliezer Henkin in 1917 in Belarus, the son of a prominent rabbi.  He and his family immigrated to the United States in 1923, and he eventually attended Harvard Law School. 

After law school, Prof. Henkin clerked for Judge Learned Hand before enlisting in the United States Army during World War II.  He served in the European Theater and was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts. 

After completing his military service, he clerked for Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter.

Beginning in 1948, Prof. Henkin worked for the U.S. State Department in the United Nations Bureau.  There, he helped author the 1951 Refugee Convention, the key legal document defining who is a refugee, their rights, and the legal obligations of states.

Prof. Henkin left the State Department in 1956 and began a long academic career, mostly at Columbia University where he founded the university’s Center for the Study of Human Rights in 1978 and created the Human Rights Institute in 1998.  Prof. Henkin was considered by many one of the “founding fathers” of human rights law. 

Volker Türk, director of UNHCR‘s Division of International Protection, saluted Professor Henkin for his “fundamental contribution to the early development of international refugee law and his unwavering commitment to the protection of human and refugees’ rights.”  “It is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou,” said Elisa Massimino, the president and chief executive officer of Human Rights First, an organization Professor Henkin helped found in 1978 under the name Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights.  “He literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights,” she said.

According to the New York Times, Prof. Henkin took a lofty view of his own government’s international responsibilities, but he often felt let down: “In the cathedral of human rights,” he wrote, “the United States is more like a flying buttress than a pillar — choosing to stand outside the international structure supporting the international human rights system, but without being willing to subject its own conduct to the scrutiny of that system.”

Continue reading