When is a migrant a refugee?
NPR has a very good story on Why A Single Question Decides The Fates Of Central American Migrants. Eyder Peralta explores how two judges come to different conclusions when interpreting the 1980 Refugee Act.
Mark Metcalf characterizes many of his cases as "heartbreaking" but if he were to follow the "hard letter of the law," almost all asylum applications from Central Americans would be denied. Metcalf argues that if migrants from Central America are fleeing crime "which is affecting 'all people in a particular country,' and are not being targeted because of a characteristic that they can't change about themselves," then they do not meet the standards for asylum.
On the other hand, William Van Wyke interprets the law much more inclusively. He argues that "leaving a country torn by violence because you refuse to be a part of it is an act of conscience" and is therefore grounds for asylum. Saying no to paying extortion or joining/working for a gang and turning a blind eye to police corruption could be interpreted as acts of conscience and might be grounds for asylum.
I often go back and forth about between these two extremes. However, I lean towards the latter interpretation since we cannot adequately and justly manage all the cases of people fleeing conditions in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. I don't necessarily support a policy that recognizes everyone leaving the Northern Triangle as refugees. Perhaps the US can grant Temporary Protected Status and other forms of humanitarian visas to others.
Mark Metcalf characterizes many of his cases as "heartbreaking" but if he were to follow the "hard letter of the law," almost all asylum applications from Central Americans would be denied. Metcalf argues that if migrants from Central America are fleeing crime "which is affecting 'all people in a particular country,' and are not being targeted because of a characteristic that they can't change about themselves," then they do not meet the standards for asylum.
On the other hand, William Van Wyke interprets the law much more inclusively. He argues that "leaving a country torn by violence because you refuse to be a part of it is an act of conscience" and is therefore grounds for asylum. Saying no to paying extortion or joining/working for a gang and turning a blind eye to police corruption could be interpreted as acts of conscience and might be grounds for asylum.
I often go back and forth about between these two extremes. However, I lean towards the latter interpretation since we cannot adequately and justly manage all the cases of people fleeing conditions in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. I don't necessarily support a policy that recognizes everyone leaving the Northern Triangle as refugees. Perhaps the US can grant Temporary Protected Status and other forms of humanitarian visas to others.
Post a Comment