Mai Nguyen was one of my Refugee Law seminar students last semester.  She has written an outstanding and timely paper about the Palestinian refugees from Syria.  Ms. Nguyen has given me permission to post her paper on my blog.  Read it and learn.

Protests in Syria Will Affect the Palestinian Refugees: Where do the Palestinians Go?

Brad Howes did well in Professor Birdsong’s Refugee and Asylum Law Seminar.  Mr. Howes is a teacher and has a number  of thoughts on how new state immigration laws may harm education of of undocumented students in the United States. He has given his permission for me to publish his paper on my blog.

Brooks Gentry, one of Professor Birdsong’s Refugee and Asylum students graduated from Barry Law in December of 2011.  Mr. Gentry had travelled to Rwanda in the past and wrote a very interesting paper on Rwanda’s genocide refugees.  He has given me permission to publish it here on my blog.  Read and learn.

RWANDA’S GENOCIDE REFUGEES

AND INVOCATION OF

THE 1951 REFUGEE CONVENTION’S

SECTION C’S CESSATION CLAUSE

 Brooks N. Gentry[1]

I.          INTRODUCTION

             Rwanda is a small, beautiful country in Central/East Africa, surrounded by the very large Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to the west, Tanzania to the east, similarly small Burundi on the southeast and popular Uganda to the northeast.[2]  Sporting the stunning lake views and beautiful beaches of Lake Kivu, along with the worlds best Gorilla Trekking in Volcans National Park, Rwanda is a world traveler’s destination.[3]  As spectacular as its scenery, Rwanda, however, also has a dark side.

            According to the United States Central Intelligence Agency, Rwanda was almost independent from Belgium when, in 1959, the then King, a Tutsi, was overthrown by the majority ethnic group, the Hutus.[4]  For years thousands of Tutsi were killed and driven into nearby countries, particularly those named above.[5]  A generation later, in the 1980’s, the children of these Rwanda exiles formed a rebel group known as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).[6]  The RPF, the Tutsi children of parents who had been driven out of their homeland Rwanda, began a civil war in Rwanda in 1990 between the Hutus and the Tutsi’s resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.[7]  Finally, in 1994 a state orchestrated mass genocide occurred in which Rwandan citizens killed one another, often family members and neighbors killing those they had known their entire lives.[8]  Later in 1994 the RPF took control of the Hutu militias and the genocide ceased, while as many as two million Hutu refugees fled Rwanda, many afraid of Tutsi retribution upon Hutus who remained home.[9] 

            Of these almost two million refugees, most have returned home.[10]  However, some have not.  For those who have not left their current host country, many reasons keep them there; fear of persecution upon returning to Rwanda among them.[11]  Until

Have any of you women or men out there wondered about the difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages?  One of my refugee and Asylum Law students, Shantel Woodard, has written a thoughtful paper that tells us the differences between these types of marriages. Shantel has given me permission to publish her paper on my blog.  Read and learn.

The Fight for Freedom Against Forced Marriages: Women Are No Longer Chattel

By: Shantel Woodard

I. Introduction

             Stories of individuals entering a marriage, having never met their future spouse prior to the wedding ceremony, seems like something that only happens in a Bollywood movie, never in real life. However, the concept of forced marriage is very much alive in reality and it affects thousands of people all over the globe. This type of marriage is what drives many women and sometimes men to seek asylum in other countries. Forced marriage is mostly occurring to young females in which they are being forced to marry someone against their will. More often than not, these young females may also be trying to flee marriages they have already entered but cannot legally obtain a divorce without fear of certain violence against them. These women often suffer at the hands of their oppressors, by being raped, violently beaten by their spouse or having to submit female genital mutilation, (“FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION”) or more.[1]

Gender-based refugee claims are becoming more and more prevalent in today’s world with forced marriage as the leading cause for asylum.  However, in our current legislation, we make no mention of forced marriage as an expressly protected ground for which asylum eligibility can be based on.[2] Usually, women’s claims for asylum are based on their fear of being raped, beaten, FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION, or being murdered if forced to return her country of origin. With this type of fear, a decision could be made based on the assessment of whether the harm rises to the level of “a well founded fear of being persecuted,” but the bigger emphasis should be placed on the underlying fact that these individuals would not be placed in this danger, had they not been subjected to the concept of forced marriage. Asylum officers and immigration judges are conveniently skirting around the issue of forced marriage. The most important issue with forced marriage is the fact it is widely culturally and religiously accepted outside the United States, which is why there is a need for redress by our government officials.

            It is my contention that we must as a society, which is empowered by the ideals of freedom for all, do more to help those who are seeking asylum based on escaping a repressive forced marriage. To better understand the concepts involved in this subject, the discussion will cover the difference between forced and arranged marriages, the history behind the concept of forced marriage as a venue for

Seth Feingold was a student in Professor Birdsong’s Refugee and Asylum course last semester.  Mr. Feingold has written an interesting paper for the seminar analyzing asylum outcomes in U.S. immigration matters prior to and after 9/11/01.  He has given me permission to put it on my blog.  read it.  I think you will find it interesting.

Refugee Admittance and Asylum Outcomes in the U.S. Before and After 9/11; Fair or Unfair?

By: Seth Feingold

Introduction

            Those who are fortunate enough to be granted asylum in a post 9/11 America receive permanent resident status and privileges that include freedom from the fear of deportation, the ability to work legally, and the possibility for future citizenship.[1]  It is because of these rights and privileges that the United States Asylum system has become the new battleground in the War on Terror.[2]  Many argue that the asylum system is a potential avenue for terrorists to seek admittance into the United State.  Therefore, in the name of national security, additional legislation was and is needed to ensure that those wishing to commit acts of terrorism do not gain entry via the asylum system.

With global terrorism and anti-American sentiment on the rise, it was thought that weaknesses in the asylum system could be easily exploited leaving American citizens vulnerable to another attack from the inside.  Acting quickly the government passed legislation and various reforms that attempted to reinforce our borders and security.  However, it is believed by many that these new changes have been made at the expense of our humanitarian efforts to provide a safe haven for those who need it most.

               Part I of this paper will detail the history of the United States asylum system.   Starting with the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and ending with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsible Act of 1996, Part I will discuss the evolution of modern day immigration law within the United States pre 9/11.  Part II will focus on post September 11^th, 2001 legislation with an examination of how these new laws and policies have affected the asylum system in particular.  Part III of this paper will look at the refugee and asylum numbers pre and post 9/11 and Part IV will present suggestions as to how the United States should proceed if it wishes to maintain its humanitarian mission to the less fortunate and those in need of refuge.