Time (Op-Ed)
By Kevin Johnson
October 1, 2015
The
Syrian refugee crisis unfortunately is simply the latest mass migration
to challenge the global community. Just last summer, for example, the
U.S. was the destination
for tens of thousands of women and children fleeing rampant gang
violence in Central America. Many other contemporary examples of large
movements of people—Haiti, Africa and Vietnam—come to mind.
How
do we as global community respond to large-scale migration flows caused
by civil war, mass disaster or severe economic deprivation?
Unfortunately, the law performs
the worst in the situation where it is needed the most. Tight controls
over numbers of people admitted do not help address mass migrations of
people. More liberal admissions are urgently needed.
International
law and the law of individual nations should be more open and admit
migrants who want to work in low- and medium-skilled (as well as
high-skilled) jobs that
are highly valued by the economies of Western nations, which have
experienced dwindling labor forces with decreasing fertility rates. We
should show our true commitment to the global community by welcoming
refugees fleeing violence, natural disaster, and lack
of opportunity with open arms, not try to stop them from entering the
country. A spirit of generosity, not stinginess, should guide our
decisions with respect to the admission of migrants. Borders should be
checkpoints not roadblocks to migrants.
Nations
often fear “floods” of migrants crossing national borders. Carefully
managed migration with numerical limits is most comfortable to the
general public. Nations
desire the perception of control over their borders and eagerly embrace
legal and physical barriers intended to keep people out.
The
problem with many, if not most immigration laws, is that rigid legal
controls, numerical limits, and ceilings that are unrealistic, simply do
not work. Whatever the
legal and other obstacles, tens of thousands of desperate Syrians are
willing to risk life and limb—and those of their children—to leave their
homeland in search of safe haven. Central Americans fleeing violence
have done the same since the 1970s. Moreover,
people suffering from stifling poverty—think North Africans hazarding
the Mediterranean Sea in hopes of reaching reach Europe, and Mexicans
crossing deserts en route to the U.S.—also risk their lives to migrate
to greater economic opportunity.
Why
does international law fail many bona fide refugees? To establish
eligibility as a “refugee” and safe haven in a country, the United
Nations Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees requires an individual showing of the likelihood of
persecution based on one of five grounds—race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group or political opinion. The
requirement of a specific individual showing is designed
to ensure that nations are not overwhelmed by large numbers of
refugees. But individualized showings can be close to impossible in
instances in which large numbers of people leave their homelands en
masse because of fear of widespread violence, natural disaster,
and economic hardship.
Along
those lines, the immigration laws of many nations require case-by-case
decisions. Under American law, family and employment visas—with annual
limits on overall visas
and those issued per country—are generally limited in number. To obtain
a visa, a prospective immigrant is presumed inadmissible unless he or
she can prove otherwise. Because of restrictions on migration are
unrealistic in many respects, the U.S. has an undocumented
population of 11 million to 12 million people—migrants who found it
necessary to find an alternative to lawful admission in the country.
Even
after the hostilities in Syria calm, the world inevitably will see
future cycles of mass migration from economic, political, social or
environmental upheaval. We
as a global community must reform the law to remedy its inability to
respond to sporadic large migration flows in an orderly, flexible and
humanitarian fashion. More liberal admissions standards that can respond
quickly and flexibly to accommodate larger flows
of people while ensuring public safety can be compatible.
To
this end, current U.S. law could be changed to create a presumption of
the admission of immigrants, rather than the presumption of exclusion
that currently exists.
This does not mean that the nation will have “open borders”; it instead
will allow immigration officers to focus efforts on screening out true
risks to public safety from our shores, not hardworking people in search
of a better life.
More
liberal admissions would allow more effective management of migration
in situations like the Syrian refugee crisis. But beyond the practical
effects, more liberal
admissions of refugees fleeing violence is more consistent with the
humanitarian aspirations of international refugee law. While some
nations have stepped up to the plate to assist in the resettlement of
refugees, others, such as Hungary, have literally barricaded
the borders.
Recall
that, in a regrettable chapter of history, the U.S. government turned
its back on Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany on the S.S. St. Louis in
1939. Unfortunately,
law has not fully changed to avoid such a tragic incident in the
future. The time is right to reform the law to move away from an era of
artificial limits to a time of humanitarianism, decency, and respect.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment