Today, the provocative question for many women seeking safety abroad is tempered by whether their case is strong enough to hold up in federal courts as well as through international mandates. All over the world, women and men endure horrific circumstances where their basic human rights do not exist. Political, religious, and sexual freedom, as well as the ability to pursue gainful employment and live in peace is beyond their reach in parts of Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Every year, thousands of such people petition United States courts and various nonprofit organizations for help in granting them access to a perceived safer, more stable environment in America. The American Dream, one that persists in the 21^st Century, even during the most unsettling of economic times, is still strong for millions of people on the outside. The key is how to get in, stay in, and survive once they are in. In 2010, the intersection of immigration policy with political asylum seekers creates hotly-contested instances to challenge federal, state, and international law.

America has a long history as a haven for asylum seekers, as well as general immigration. In order to qualify for asylum in the U.S., the applicant must submit admission at a port of entry within a year of being in the country. They must also provide substantive proof that they are fleeing religious or political persecution that may threaten their life and liberty. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website states, “Refugee status or asylum may be granted for individuals who have been persecuted or [fear persecution] based on their race, religion, nationality and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion”.

Since 1995 reforms, the law states that the applicant must have a case review within 60 days of issuing the application, and if they do not appear, or they are determined to be unqualified, they could receive deportation orders from the immigration judge or asylum officer. This is the short version, of course. Many cases over the years have proven to be more complicated than simply applying and waiting to be heard. There are specific provisions for battered spouses and children, and humanitarian exceptions, such as the Haitian earthquake. When there is criminal activity involved, or the fact that one entered the country illegally to begin with, things get hazy.

A 1988 Los Angeles Times article pointed out a marked increase in asylum applications from Central America two years after the sweeping 1986 Immigration Law “unintended consequences” as the author noted. Apparently, these undocumented (illegal) immigrants were seeking work authorization cards that allowed them to find employment while their applications were in process. This is not a new situation in 2010, obviously. Everyone is looking for work, including the estimated 12.5 million illegal immigrants we now have in the United States.

Border States like California, Texas, Utah and Arizona experience a somewhat more acute situation with those wishing to enter the country by whatever means. Tension is apparent since President Obama’s candidacy hearings, where he vowed to work with federal and state governments to handle illegal immigration, and possibly set up a system of amnesty towards legal citizenship for many of the millions.

Citizens in these particular states reject the idea of sharing their hard-earned taxpaying dollars with those they consider to be freeloaders of the welfare system, who also “refuse” to assimilate, i.e.: learn English. They are apparently stealing available (and desirable) jobs from American citizens and create higher crime rates because they are hard to trace in crime databases.

According to the LA Times article, less than 4% of applicants from El Salvador and Guatemala received asylum in 1988, compared with a whopping 80% of Nicaraguan applicants the year before, hinting at politically-driven decision-making. Whether that was true or not, today the debates center around whether exploding murder rates of women in parts of Central and South America are reason enough to consider a grantee’s claim. What is clear is that women face human trafficking, drug smuggling coercion, and multiple rapes while even trying to flee Latin America, so they constitute a high percentage of eligibility for protection under various United Nations agreements.

Take the July 13 ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit in California; two lower immigration courts ruled that illegal Guatemalan woman, Lesly Yajayra Perdomo, should be reconsidered for asylum and not deported because the terms were too broad. Ms. Perdomo’s stated fear is that she will be killed if she returns to Guatemala, where 3,800 women have been murdered since 2000.

A 2002 Human Rights Watch research and advocacy mission report found that a large problem in addressing crimes of any sort is impunity. The police forces are overwhelmed with various classifications of criminal activity; so many crimes against women in particular go underreported or not investigated at all. Human rights defenders in the country repeatedly face intimidation or outright violence for speaking up against citizens’ abuse. The government may make small public efforts to meet with organizations to handle abusive activities and identify secret terror groups, but no substantial results from these efforts. Minimal resources for the Attorney General charged with handling reports of abuse and prosecuting accordingly highlight the flaws within the Portillo administration, and the ongoing struggles in Guatemala to fulfill international mandates for protecting activists and social change agendas. Current country reports (as of 2009) conclude that the weakness and corruption of the government directly contribute to inequality among the citizenry and unaccountability for the rule of law.

The charge that the state courts have, going forward, is to maintain accurate and fair proceedings, especially with activist groups like the Concerned Citizens of the United States issuing mandates to government organizations and publicly petitioning the media with unlawfully obtained “blacklists” of alleged illegals in Utah. President Obama has already issued a suit ruling that the Arizona illegal immigration law (filed in April and scheduled to go into effect July 29 unless blocked by a higher court) was unconstitutional, but the 9^th Circuit case bears reason for review, advocates and academics say. Local Queens Defense Attorney Devian Daniels said, “Asylum statutes are supposed to protect people that have a credible fear that they will be killed”. Ms. Daniels is currently working on a case of an El Salvador woman who claims she was gang-raped and is requesting a similar stay in the U.S.  Ultimately, the Board of Immigration Appeals must determine if Ms. Perdomo will be granted asylum, yet the fact remains that any precedents developed this year will shape human rights and national democracy policies of the future.

No related posts.

Tags: Socially Conscious