Thursday, September 24, 2015

WHEN CAN REFUGEES BE KEPT OUT OF THE U.S. ON SECURITY AND OTHER GROUNDS?

A number of misconceptions have marred recent public debates on the prospect of admitting more Syrian refugees to the United States in light of the current Syrian refugee crisis. In particular, concerns over the potential terrorist threat posed by this population have been exaggerated. For one thing, the so-called Islamic State has been far more interested in bringing foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq to pursue palpable territorial stakes than in sending out operatives on improbable Al-Qaeda-style missions to the U.S. (Note that Islamic State-inspired attacks in Paris, France and in Garland, Texas were both perpetrated by homegrown -- respectively, French-born and U.S.-born -- terrorists.)

More importantly, the long and scrupulous U.S. refugees admissions process clearly presents the least efficient, least likely infiltration route for terrorist plotters. (It has been perceptively pointed out, for example, that it would be "far easier for terrorists to enter as tourists—or via smuggling networks.")

From a legal perspective, part of what makes this resettlement process (whether via U.N. referral or via family reunification) so arduous, besides its procedural and substantive complexities, is that it is particularly amenable to a patient and multilayered application (both formally by U.S. government agencies and informally by UNHCR and/or established voluntary organizations) of inadmissibility grounds (i.e., legal bases for keeping people out of U.S. soil). In the Syrian context, in particular, we can expect an especially strict application of the otherwise-overbroad inadmissibility ground of association with terrorism.

Nonetheless, waivers of inadmissibility might be available in limited cases. For more information on this and related legal issues, read my article on NOLO.COM.

No comments:

Post a Comment