Can women severely abused also claim protection under U.S. Asylum laws? Under which of the five (5) protected classes we have discussed would they fall under? Commonly referred to amongst immigration litigators as Matter of RA claims (based on the immigration case of Rose Alvarado), the law is still unsettled, and Kimberly mentions a very important and controversial basis for political asylum in her recent blog entry. Many woman asylum seekers are still waiting for final rules and regulations to be released. In the interim, some cases are denied, while other women simply must wait until final regulations are promulgated. Take a look at the gender-asylum timeline and the law as it has developed at http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/documents/cgrs/cgrs_brochure.pdf.
Next week, we will discuss one of the unfortunate chapters in American immigration policy: The "registration" of predominately Muslim male non-immigrants in the United States.
Was the policy similar to the Japanese internment camps? Chapter 3, of "We Are All Suspects Now, (Special Registration in Chicago), discusses one community near Loyola University affected by Special Registration. 
We will learn about other individuals, as registration impacted their lives, in Thirst Films' documentary, Patriot Acts. We will also discuss the USA PATRIOT Act. 
See you next week....
6 comments:
This is a very interesting article published in the New York Times. What do you think about it?, Do you agree that "America’s dirtiest, hardest jobs are done by people too desperate to shun them and too afraid to complain"?. Why do you think the Article was named "They are America"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/opinion/18sun1.html?hp
Kathy,
About the editorial you cited... I'm not sure what to think of the title, to be honest. Clearly, the author's detailed discussion of the ways in which we have "gotten tough" on immigrants makes the government look awfully misguided. However, did you catch the second-to-last paragraph? ("Enforcement of laws cannot be ignored. Punish immigrants who enter illegally...") Why the concession about punishing those who are undocumented? What continues to be absent from arguments like these is any real consideration of the causes of illegal migration. People would not risk the trip if there were not jobs waiting for them!
Kate, seems to question the title of the NY Times, editorial, I believe. In "We Are America" the author discusses many of the issues we have discussed, the dualistice attitude of loving our past, hating our present (i.e., our system is broken), the problems with asylum, the immigration legal process under fire, new laws or immigration policy directed at immigration eforcement and national security. Hard answers do not exist do they? We will see a get tough approach to national security when we see Patriot Acts and discuss the Patriot Act next week. Is Kate right about enforcement of immigration laws. But what happens when those laws apply to only one class of individuals. What about Equal Protection or Due Process Concerns? Should they apply? She a Muslim from Algeria be requried to fingerprinted and photographed when a Chinese national here with the same status does not? The Chinese were discriminated against severely, as we learned from Daniels. But those laws have been scrapped or held unconstituional. Those laws, have become something, we are Americans, should be shameful. Those who fail to pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it--is that how the saying goes? If you don't think we havent done much of this before with immigration policy, take a look at this article. We should be aware that enfocement of some laws may be unfare and later declared unconstitutional, despite contemporary public support.
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2003,0128-helt.shtm
We talked in class about how immigration is based on politics and economics. It is also emotional. There never seems to be a clear cut answer to the many immigration questions. We are torn when we hear of stories about people like Farah Choudhry's who spoke to us last week. There is no question her family should be allowed to stay. My niece who works at a women's shelter told me the story of an abused woman who was brought here by her husband (he was legal). He beat her and kept telling her she could not leave because he was her sponsor for citizenship and he would report her if she left him. Fortunately, she was able to get residency on her own.
Our country does like to believe we welcome all, but in actuality we do not - at least not with open arms. We have a long history of denying certain ethnic groups basic rights. We were forced to pass a Civil Rights Act just to prevent discrimination. We should not have to pass laws to make people be decent to each other. I read a good book in a history class that broke down the way the United States treated each ethnic group that arrived in the U.S.- the Irish were given jobs that slave owners felt were too dangerous for their slaves.
I saw an interesting story on one of the news stations on how Mexicans are going to New Orleans to rebuild the city. They are going where they know there are jobs for them. The problem with that is a local hospital used to see about 2-3% of Hispanic women giving birth. Now, that hospital’s births are 85% Hispanic. There is a communication problem between the doctors and the women. It also brings up the issue of payment. This is not a free hospital and the women do not have insurance. What is the answer, how do you bill a person who technically does not exist in this country?
Before reading about female refugees who are victims of violence, I wasn’t aware that the issue was so controversial. It would make sense to me that women would be able to come in with the same consistency that victims of war crimes and religious persecution are allotted. It seems ludicrous to me, that in a country where issues of domestic and sexual abuse are taken seriously that severe violence against women is still not regarded as an established reason for claiming asylum. I think it’s a travesty that the Bush Administration has not yet finalized the proposed regulations regarding gender asylum. If more Americans knew about the inequities regarding gender asylum, I think many would strongly disagree with the INS policy. This can be seen in one of the examples given by the CGRS, of a case where they were able to create media attention surrounding the case of a woman from Jordan who would have been the victim of an “honor killing” had she not escaped. Once the public’s attention and the attention of the House and Senate was brought to the case, the INS was forced to withdraw their opposition. Since September 11th, Bush has made it a point to emphasis the difference between our ‘free’ country and the largely Islamic nations that harbor terrorists and fund terrorism. Many critics point to and condemn the treatment of women in Islamic societies and actions such as honor killings. For the United States to condemn such actions and then deny the victims of those same actions asylum is both hypocritical and sad in my opinion.
Here's an interesting article regarding Canada's ruling that indefinite detention is wrong. There is no chance, sadly, of this ever happening in the U.S.:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070223/ap_on_re_ca/canada_anti_terror_law
Post a Comment