By Andrew Wolman
The United States has always had a complex relationship with international refugee norms. At times, the US has shut its doors to deserving refugees from Haiti, Central America and elsewhere. On the other hand, in recent years it has consistently resettled vastly more refugees than any other country in the world. In 2015, out of 81,893 UNHCR refugee resettlement departures, 52,583 people were destined for the United States. Many of them were particularly vulnerable women and children, and religious minorities – Christian, Muslim and Buddhist. This openness has been consistent with America's history as an immigrant haven.
The only time that American's commitment to refugee resettlement was previously drawn into question was in the period after the 9/11 attack. At this time, there was a three month suspension of refugee resettlement, but it resumed promptly, and by 2009 the program was larger in scope than it had been prior to 2001. And it is hard to argue with the fact that resettlement has worked well – for the United States and for the refugees themselves. Resettled refugees have by and large achieved economic self-sufficiency, created thousands of new jobs with their entrepreneurialism, and infused much needed energy into cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Terrorism has not been a problem, in part because the refugees are already subject to an exhaustive pre-resettlement security check, and in part because they tend to treasure the country which has given them protection.
The U.S. ― until recently ― also tried to persuade other countries to open their gates to refugees from the Middle East as well, and with some success. Last September, President Obama convened a conference of world leaders in New York, with participation contingent on making new commitments to assist refugees. Cumulatively, states committed to double the number of refugees resettled or offered other legal admission channels at the conference (which seems so long ago now). Many hoped that 2017 would be the year that the US and other countries truly committed to a large scale resettlement program that could begin to ease the burden on Turkey, Lebanon and other developing countries currently sheltering the great majority of the world's refugees.
This hopefulness is now a thing of the past, as indeed is the entire tradition of the U.S. leadership in refugee resettlement. With President Donald Trump's executive order banning entry to residents of seven majority Muslim countries, putting a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement (including North Koreans), and indefinitely barring Syrian refugees, he wipes away some of America's most important humanitarian legacy. He imposes a solution on what is not a problem. Instead, he puts into place a regime of hate, discrimination, and fear. There is no conceivable way this will make America safer.
From the perspective of international law, it would be quite easy to point out the violations in Trump's order. The 1951 Refugee Convention states, very clearly, that it shall be applied "to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin." But it would be naïve to think that Trump cares about flouting international law. It is going to be a long four years, and so far the greatest Trump-era losers are not the Democrats. Rather, they are the thousands of refugees around the world who are seeing their hopes for a new life dashed.
Andrew Wolman is a professor at the Graduate School of International and Area Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, where he teaches international migration law and international human rights law. Write to Wolman at amw247@yahoo.com.
.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
The only time that American's commitment to refugee resettlement was previously drawn into question was in the period after the 9/11 attack. At this time, there was a three month suspension of refugee resettlement, but it resumed promptly, and by 2009 the program was larger in scope than it had been prior to 2001. And it is hard to argue with the fact that resettlement has worked well – for the United States and for the refugees themselves. Resettled refugees have by and large achieved economic self-sufficiency, created thousands of new jobs with their entrepreneurialism, and infused much needed energy into cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Terrorism has not been a problem, in part because the refugees are already subject to an exhaustive pre-resettlement security check, and in part because they tend to treasure the country which has given them protection.
The U.S. ― until recently ― also tried to persuade other countries to open their gates to refugees from the Middle East as well, and with some success. Last September, President Obama convened a conference of world leaders in New York, with participation contingent on making new commitments to assist refugees. Cumulatively, states committed to double the number of refugees resettled or offered other legal admission channels at the conference (which seems so long ago now). Many hoped that 2017 would be the year that the US and other countries truly committed to a large scale resettlement program that could begin to ease the burden on Turkey, Lebanon and other developing countries currently sheltering the great majority of the world's refugees.
This hopefulness is now a thing of the past, as indeed is the entire tradition of the U.S. leadership in refugee resettlement. With President Donald Trump's executive order banning entry to residents of seven majority Muslim countries, putting a 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement (including North Koreans), and indefinitely barring Syrian refugees, he wipes away some of America's most important humanitarian legacy. He imposes a solution on what is not a problem. Instead, he puts into place a regime of hate, discrimination, and fear. There is no conceivable way this will make America safer.
From the perspective of international law, it would be quite easy to point out the violations in Trump's order. The 1951 Refugee Convention states, very clearly, that it shall be applied "to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin." But it would be naïve to think that Trump cares about flouting international law. It is going to be a long four years, and so far the greatest Trump-era losers are not the Democrats. Rather, they are the thousands of refugees around the world who are seeing their hopes for a new life dashed.
Andrew Wolman is a professor at the Graduate School of International and Area Studies at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, where he teaches international migration law and international human rights law. Write to Wolman at amw247@yahoo.com.
![[INTERVIEW] Mirinae Lee's '8 Lives of a Century-Old Trickster' offers fresh perspective on Korean history](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/5fb62072584d44649ed0ca5956d387ea.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[REVIEW] Preview gala sets stage for grand premiere of 'La Rose de Versailles' musical](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/c7528d2924cd43c8a469cd46e6f56127.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
