Birdsong's Law Blog

Birdsong has only lately come to learn that there have been about 300,000 child soldiers who have fought in wars and rebellions across the world since the 1990′s.  Birdsong’s student, Shelya Nieves, has researched the problems of child soldiers and the problems they present in the context of refugee law.  She has written an outstanding paper on the subject that she has allowed me to post on the blog.  You will find this information very enlighting.

Back when  Birdsong was a radio talk show host I often  liked to have some good clean fun by skewering Republican politicians and their antics on my radio program.  Birdsong is so busy these days with other such pursuits as teaching law, writing, and  lecturingfor the  bar prep company, BARBRI, that I have had little time to make fun of the Repubs.

Unfortunately, given the GOP’s position in the Senate and House of Representatives with respect to the proposed $787 Billion bill that Congress passed earlier this afternoon without a single Republican vote, the GOP may be on their way to oblivion.  There may be no GOP to skewer in a few years to come.  The party’s monolithic obstructionism of Obama and the proposed stimulus package shows how out of step they are with the changing mood of our country.  Most people want the country  and the President to succeed.

 Birdsong understands the GOP now sees itself as the “loyal opposition.”  However, since the GOP has decided to stand together and follow Rush Limbaugh’s call to help see  that Obama’s policies fail

Birdsong’s refugee law student , Matthew Chidester, performed some interesting research last semester which  explores the imbalance in Iraqi war refugee admitted to the United States in light of the number of Southeast Asians admitted to the U.S. during and immediately after the Viet Nam war.  His paper is quite interesting and well worth reading.  Read and learn!

Iraqi Refugee Despair: Exploring the Imbalance in Iraqi Refugee Admissions, Compared to Previous Post-War Patterns

Matthew Chidester

December, 2008

Introduction

     The Office of the President of the United States ultimately governs the refugee policy in the United States[1].  There are several agencies and government bodies who process and investigate possible candidates, but the heart of the policy governing who is given refugee status in the United States, leads back to the directives of the President himself[2].  Officially, the refugee policy of the United States is embodied in our several Acts and Conventions, including the “1980 Refugee Act”[3], the “1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees”[4], and the “1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees”[5].  These acts are in fact guidelines, as our treaties with other nations, and, as will be frequently mentioned, the principles and preferences of the President himself often change.

     Over the last five years there has been a remarkable outcry to assist the citizens of Iraq who were made homeless by war with Iran or in the more recent and ongoing war with the United States.  The outcry is quite critical of the sharp gulf of refugees the United States has accepted as opposed to other first world countries of the world.  But to adequately understand if this obvious deficit is the result of necessity, meaning the United States simply cannot allow more refugees in for reasons like security or the ability of the United States to offer them the requisite assistance once here, or if the deficit is a result of policy, we should consider other similar conflicts in our contemporary history.  The Vietnam becomes an easy foil because of both wars were fought far removed from our soil, and neither war was fought for conquest or enrichment.  Indeed both wars were fought over political ideals, and both wars were far bloodier for the native people than for the United States. 

     In choosing this topic, I hope to understand the role foreign war plays in our refugee policies, as well as to better understand whether our current refugee policies are well founded and consistent with previously similar circumstances,

One of Birdsong’s favorite refugee law students is Terry Hanson.  Birdsong oversaw Mr. Hanson’s refugee research last semester.  Mr. Hanson believes our immigration system is terrible and that the current system needs to be abolished in order to encourage more people to come to the U.S. who wish to work and build our economy.
Based upon his research Mr. Hanson has written a paper aptly entitled “ICE and Despair. He has given Birdsong permission to post information about himself, as well as his paper.  Read and learn.

Birdsong oversaw quite a bit of student research on refugee problems last semester.  The following paper by my student Shamir Patel is quite interesting and valuable to read to learn how the “Material Support Bar” works to the detriment of many seeking asyum in the United States.

Read and learn.

Refugees at Risk—The Impact of the Material Support Bar

on Refugees Who Seek Asylum in the United States

 Shamir J. Patel

 “The present interpretation of the material support bar has effectively altered U.S. policy so that refugees and asylum seekers who have suffered at the hands of terrorists and despotic regimes are now no longer welcome to the U.S. as our friends.”

—Letter to President Bush from leaders of faith-based communities including the National Association of Evangelical Churches, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops[1]I.             INTRODUCTION

             The United States has a long history of providing safe haven to refugees escaping political oppression and religious persecution in their homelands.[2] But thousands of vulnerable refugees have been prevented from receiving the protection of this country due to the overly broad immigration law definitions contained in USA PATRIOT Act and the REAL ID Act of 2005.[3]

            These provisions bar from asylum or resettlement anyone who has provided what the law terms “material support” to “terrorist organizations.”[4] The definitions of these terms in the immigration laws, however, and their application by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are so exceedingly broad that the bar is tragically affecting refugees who do not support terrorism at all.[5]

            These refugees include women who were raped and enslaved by armed militias in Liberia; victims of extortion