Introductory Remarks by Kate Jastram

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 101-102
Author(s):  
Kate Jastram

Some governments, including but not limited to the United States, are taking ever more draconian measures to prevent asylum seekers from gaining access to territory and status determination procedures. An unknown number die in the attempt to reach safety. Asylum seekers who are intercepted at sea and even those who succeed in reaching a land border may simply be turned back. If allowed to present a claim, they may face detention, family separation, criminal prosecution, and/or bars to eligibility for refugee status based on their lack of documentation, irregular entry, or other supposed legal fault, such as failure to apply for asylum in another country. In opposing policies that criminalize seeking asylum and in defending individual asylum seekers, attorneys have pointed to Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which, subject to certain limitations, prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees on account of their illegal entry or presence.

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Azadeh Dastyari ◽  
Daniel Ghezelbash

Abstract Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention.


2020 ◽  
Vol 690 (1) ◽  
pp. 192-199
Author(s):  
Yael Schacher

Drawing on the author’s work with refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, this article examines policies and practices related to family separation among immigrants in the 1920s and now. I use data collected from historical archives and firsthand interviews with refugees and asylum seekers and describe how restrictions on the admission of relatives leaves immigrants and refugees in the United States feeling unsettled and divided. I compare the situation in the 1920s to more recent years, when the federal government has pursued policies to restrict admission and impede integration.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleanor Acer ◽  
Olga Byrne

Seeking asylum is a human right, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) and its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (“1967 Protocol”) prohibit the United States from returning refugees to persecution, and the 1980 Refugee Act set up a formal process for applying for asylum in the United States. However, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) created a barrage of new barriers to asylum. These impediments have blocked many refugees from accessing asylum in the United States and inserted additional layers of technicalities, screening, and processing, undermining the effectiveness of the US asylum system. The barriers imposed by IIRIRA are significant. They include a filing deadline on asylum applications, which prevents genuine refugees from receiving asylum if they cannot prove they have filed the application within one year of arriving in the United States. IIRIRA also established summary deportation procedures, including “expedited removal” and “reinstatement of removal,” which block asylum seekers from even applying for asylum or accessing an immigration court removal hearing, unless they first pass through a screening process. Finally, IIRIRA imposed “mandatory detention” on certain immigrants, including asylum seekers who are placed in expedited removal proceedings upon their arrival at a US port of entry. Each of these provisions imposed new processes and procedures that have contributed to an increasingly ineffective immigration system. The current backlog in the immigration courts has reached a record high, surpassing half a million cases, while the backlog of affirmative asylum cases before the Asylum Division of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has increased by a factor of six in just three years. Backlogs, which lead to long delays in adjudication, undermine system integrity as bona fide asylum seekers wait for years in legal limbo — some with families waiting abroad in dangerous and life-threatening situations — and individuals without meritorious claims may be encouraged to file applications to receive a work permit during the lengthy waiting period. Twenty years later, as the world faces the largest global refugee crisis since World War II, the asylum barriers injected into the US system under IIRIRA have proven harmful to refugees, and detrimental to the US asylum system. This paper highlights recent research, litigation, and advocacy efforts that have further brought to light the rights violations and systemic inefficiencies generated by IIRIRA. It concludes with a series of recommendations, calling on the US government to eliminate these counterproductive barriers and to take steps to assure access to asylum.


1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Dana

This paper describes the status of multicultural assessment training, research, and practice in the United States. Racism, politicization of issues, and demands for equity in assessment of psychopathology and personality description have created a climate of controversy. Some sources of bias provide an introduction to major assessment issues including service delivery, moderator variables, modifications of standard tests, development of culture-specific tests, personality theory and cultural/racial identity description, cultural formulations for psychiatric diagnosis, and use of findings, particularly in therapeutic assessment. An assessment-intervention model summarizes this paper and suggests dimensions that compel practitioners to ask questions meriting research attention and providing avenues for developments of culturally competent practice.


2021 ◽  
pp. 003232172110205
Author(s):  
Giulia Mariani ◽  
Tània Verge

Building on historical and discursive institutionalism, this article examines the agent-based dynamics of gradual institutional change. Specifically, using marriage equality in the United States as a case study, we examine how actors’ ideational work enabled them to make use of the political and discursive opportunities afforded by multiple venues to legitimize the process of institutional change to take off sequentially through layering, displacement, and conversion. We also pay special attention to how the discursive strategies deployed by LGBT advocates, religious-conservative organizations and other private actors created new opportunities to influence policy debates and tip the scales to their preferred policy outcome. The sequential perspective adopted in this study allows problematizing traditional conceptualizations of which actors support or contest the status quo, as enduring oppositional dynamics lead them to perform both roles in subsequent phases of the institutional change process.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Smita Ghosh ◽  
Mary Hoopes

Drawing upon an analysis of congressional records and media coverage from 1981 to 1996, this article examines the growth of mass immigration detention. It traces an important shift during this period: while detention began as an ad hoc executive initiative that was received with skepticism by the legislature, Congress was ultimately responsible for entrenching the system over objections from the agency. As we reveal, a critical component of this evolution was a transformation in Congress’s perception of asylum seekers. While lawmakers initially decried their detention, they later branded them as dangerous. Lawmakers began describing asylum seekers as criminals or agents of infectious diseases in order to justify their detention, which then cleared the way for the mass detention of arriving migrants more broadly. Our analysis suggests that they may have emphasized the dangerousness of asylum seekers to resolve the dissonance between their theoretical commitments to asylum and their hesitance to welcome newcomers. In addition to this distinctive form of cognitive dissonance, we discuss a number of other implications of our research, including the ways in which the new penology framework figured into the changing discourse about detaining asylum seekers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Harini Sarva ◽  
Gustavo A. Patino ◽  
Mehmood Rashid ◽  
James W. M. Owens ◽  
Matthew S. Robbins ◽  
...  

AbstractThe need for subspecialty-trained neurologists is growing in parallel with increasing disease burden. However, despite the immense burden of neurological diseases, like headache and neurodegenerative disorders, recruitment into these subspecialties remains insufficient in the United States. In this manuscript, a group of educators from the American Academy of Neurology’s A.B. Baker Section on Neurological Education sought to review and discuss the current landscape of neurology fellowships in the United States, the factors driving fellowship recruitment and the educational barriers. Moreover, suggestions to potentially improve recruitment for under-selected fellowships, which can contribute towards an alignment between neurological education and neurological needs, and future educational scenarios are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document