Give
me your tired ... and abused?
The Christian Science Monitor
May 18, 4:00 AM ET
Should a victim of domestic violence in another country be granted
asylum in the United States - broadening yet again the scope of who
finds refuge in the US?
The Bush administration, apparently, doesn't want to answer this tough
question. The Department of Justice has been stalling for years over a
precedent-setting case, and the administration has been holding back
anticipated guidelines which would bring needed clarity to asylum law,
and with that, consistent treatment of these cases.
It's easy to understand why. With an estimated 8 to 10 million illegal
immigrants in the US, and terrorists eager to enter, the mood is
anything but supportive of an expanded definition of who qualifies for
asylum protection.
That definition has stretched considerably since it was first set down
in the 1951 United Nations Refugee convention. Although the categories
of qualifying refugees were broad (those who have a well-founded fear
of persecution for their race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion), the interpretation was
narrow.
In the wake of World War II, the convention was applied mostly to
political dissidents in communist nations, or people who risked state
persecution should they return home. Now, asylum seekers make claims
based on fear of persecution for refusing to join a gang, for instance,
or to wear the veil in an Islamic country. Grounds for asylum have
evolved beyond state-sponsored persecution.
Throwing a commonplace abuse like domestic violence into the mix raises
the "floodgates" question. If the administration comes out with
guidelines favorable to victims of domestic violence, will throngs
respond? Is it the job of the US to protect everyone in the world from
violence?
But there's another legitimate view of this issue. At its core, the
Refugee convention relates to human rights, and the world's
understanding of that subject has evolved over the decades. In 1993,
for instance, the US began recognizing gender-based persecution as
grounds for asylum.
Although women aren't specifically named in the five categories of the
Convention, the Board of Immigration Appeals has fit them under the
"particular social group" heading. Just as people can be persecuted for
their race, so can women for being female. As a result, asylum has been
granted in cases of female circumcision, honor killings, and forced
marriage. Of course, the other statutory standards need to be met -
that the woman has already arrived in the US, and can prove that her
government won't protect her if she returns home.
Given this precedent, it's hard to set the violence of domestic abuse
apart from these other cases. Some argue that, unlike female
circumcision, which is culturally sanctioned, and thus difficult to
escape, domestic abuse is an individual matter.
But legally, that makes no difference. The key to persecution is
whether the state is unable or unwilling to stop it.
In the case bottled up at Justice, Rodi Alvarado sought protection from
the Guatemalan police and courts, which refused to intervene in a
domestic matter. She was beaten brutally by her husband, and he tracked
her down and beat her unconscious when she first fled. Finally, she
made it to the US, and in 1996 was granted asylum. But the Immigration
and Naturalization Service appealed, and her case is now pending. The
Department of Homeland Security (which now includes immigration), has
sided with Ms. Alvarado.
An answer to the domestic violence question may lie in today's asylum
trends. Millions of illegal immigrants flock into the US to take
advantage of lax enforcement, yet that comparison is hard to draw with
the relatively low number of asylum seekers: 46,272 claims in 2003, and
11,434 cases granted. The number of seekers has dropped considerably
since a peak of 147,430 in 1995. Congress has also tightened asylum
requirements.
The administration should issue its guidelines and let Alvarado in.
Asylum for domestic violence could raise global awareness of this issue
- just as the outcry over female circumcision has begun to have an
effect in Africa. But Congress should keep an eye on when and where to
draw the line. It can define and undefine categories of refugees. If a
torrent of claims erupts, it should act, as should US diplomats to stem
the problem at its base.
Asylum law can't become a loophole for the US to take on all the sins
of the world.
Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.