Frequently Asked Questions: Amnesty International & Refugees
Q. Why has Amnesty International (AI) decided to work on refugee issues?
Our organization has always had concerns about refugees and asylum seekers. The editorial in the London Observer which started AI in 1961 mentioned assisting refugees as one of AI's objectives. Any refugee who is in danger of being returned to a country where s/he faces a likelihood of falling victim to human rights violations within our mandate is of concern to AI. These guidelines generally follow international standards for the protection of refugees.
Q. What does Amnesty International USA's Refugee Office do?
The Refugee Office of AIUSA provides research to help document political asylum claims. Occasionally the office is also able to provide letters of support for particularly compelling cases. They also develop membership activities, such as letter writing actions and do policy work to ensure that a fair and adequate system is maintained.
Q. Why can you work in your own country on refugee issues but not on other AI issues?
AI members may work on two issues within their own country: 1) the abolition of the judicial death penalty and 2) refugee work (refugees in danger of being returned to a country where their human rights might reasonably be expected to be violated).
In its refugee work, AI's human rights concerns are in the country where the refugee will be returned. Any concerns AI has with the United States Government or with US Policy are with the policies or practices which will lead to the refugee's return to the country where s/he might reasonably be expected to face human rights violations.
Q. What is AIUSA's central message about asylum seekers?
The issue involves both rights and responsibilities. The United States has a right to control its borders and regulate immigration as it sees fit. Persons have the right to seek asylum here. The United States has the responsibility under international law:
- to allow asylum seekers access to a fair determination system, and
- not to return people to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on their race, religion, political opinion, membership in a social group, or nationality.
The US does have legislation and regulations which guarantee certain levels of protection from return to a dangerous situation in another country. Individuals have the right to asylum in the US or can be given a stay of deportation if they can prove a well-founded fear of past persecution or the likelihood of future persecution if returned to their country. However, many refugees whom AI believes may be in danger if returned to their countries, are not given asylum even when there is strong evidence of former or possible persecution against themselves, their families or members of similar groups.
Q. Why does AI work to keep so many safeguards in the asylum process? Doesn't this slow the system down?
Refugees arriving in the United States are typically tired and scared, do not speak English and are unfamiliar with our laws. A person who has witnessed or experienced torture, imprisonment or threats at the hands of his or her government may be afraid to confide in US officials and believe that our government will share information with theirs. Women who have been sexually assaulted by authority figures in their country of origin may have a hard time talking to US officials, particularly if the officials are men.
A short time limit that denies a refugee the opportunity to present his or her persecution claim will inevitably result in returning some refugees to their persecutors. Because asylum seekers often have their lives at stake, the risk is too great to decide applications hurriedly and without a mechanism to correct inevitable errors. A fair hearing that is subject to review by an independent administrative body ensures consistency and minimizes errors. Even a parking ticket can be contested!
Q. What is expedited removal?
If an individual enters the US without valid documentation, and is intercepted by the INS upon entering the country, she is not considered to have ever legally arrived on US soil. This usually occurs at airport customs, at border crossings, or when boats carrying immigrants are met and boarded offshore by the US Coast Guard. Provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 create a new "expedited removal" process. Generally, this procedure allows for asylum seekers entering without valid documentation to be given a summary interview at the point of entry or at a designated location by an asylum officer. Individuals not able to demonstrate a "credible fear" are entitled to review of this decision before an immigration judge upon "verbal or written request". This review can happen within 24 hours of the credibility finding, but no later than 7 days after the decision from the asylum officer.
Arriving asylum seekers would have to prove their persecution claims almost immediately after stressful and fatiguing journeys and without the assistance of counsel, interpreters, or knowledge of our laws. The fair solution is to conduct hearings properly, not eliminate fair hearings.
Interim guidelines are currently available, however, the final guidelines will not be available until after the April 1, 1997 effective date. Certain procedures may change with the final regulations.
Q. But isn't the asylum system out of control? Aren't there hundreds of thousands of people taking advantage of the system to come here, get permission to work, and hide in our society?
Preliminary figures for 1996 show that slightly under 456,000 await asylum decisions by the United States. This backlog may exist because, among other reasons, people abuse the system, because the system is under-funded or poorly managed by the US, or because the world is a dangerous place. Whatever the reason, the US's obligation not to return people without a fair shot at asylum remains.
The US acceded to the UN Protocol in 1968. This international agreement obliges the US not to return individuals to countries where their lives or freedom would be in danger. The US underscored its commitment to this agreement when Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980. The Refugee Act was passed to eliminate the ideological and geographic biases in the granting of protection to refugees which were present in previous legislation.
History tells us that tough economic times produce resentment towards immigrants. Regardless, international law and the state of the world require us to live up to our obligations towards those who can't go home.
Q. What about terrorists trying to take advantage of the system to harm the US? Shouldn't people be penalized for coming here with false documents?
Asylum applicants are fingerprinted and face the prospects of months or years in detention. Asylum-seeking is a bad risk for would-be terrorists who could easily cross our borders through other means.
AI does not mean to make light of forgery or traveling with false documents. Governments have historically dealt seriously with violators. But saving peoples lives has often involved use of extra-legal means. The heroic work of Raoul Wallenberg is known to most Americans. He and others helped thousands of Jews escape Hungary. Many escaped not with legal documents, but through forgeries by Zionist youth groups. Wallenberg himself designed passports that "had absolutely no validity in international law," according to one biographer.
Q. Why don't people just apply for asylum in their own countries? Why do they have to come here?
A person generally is not considered to be a refugee unless she has fled her country. Refugee processing centers exist only in a few countries and it's often very dangerous, if not impossible, to reach such centers.
Q. Does AIUSA oppose interdiction of migrants at sea (interception of boats before they can reach US soil) by the US Coast Guard?
Yes, AIUSA opposes the interdiction at sea of persons who are seeking asylum. The asylum determination procedures on US Coast Guard vessels which have interdicted Haitians lack of fundamental safeguards which AI considers necessary for a fair determination procedure. AI has received no information to refute the conclusion that this practice of interdiction obstructs asylum seekers in need of protection.
Q. Does AIUSA oppose the detention of refugees?
AI is concerned about the detention of asylum seekers because: 1. detention may impede or obstruct the preparation of an asylum claim (it's hard to find a lawyer and pursue an asylum claim from jail); 2. the debilitating effects of detention may cause some to abandon their claim for asylum and return to their country of origin, even if this puts them at risk (detention can be so difficult that people give up their legal pursuit of asylum); 3. detention may increase the risk to persons in danger in their home countries by discouraging them from seeking asylum in a country where they believe they will be detained on arrival (someone being persecuted might be discouraged from seeking asylum in the US because he fears being put into jail when he gets here).
AI calls on governments to demonstrate that in any case where asylum seekers are detained, such detention is lawful according to international standards. If a government cannot so demonstrate, AI opposes that detention practice.
Q. Who determines if an asylum case should be supported by AIUSA and what type of support is given to a refugee?
The National Refugee Coordinator, in consultation with Country Coordination Groups and the International Secretariat, decides which cases AIUSA will support or which cases within the section will be selected for a letter writing appeal. The International Secretariat initiates the Urgent Actions on "Fear of Refoulement" for cases outside the US.
Often AI will have reported on the applicant's own imprisonment in her home country, or issued an Urgent Action on her behalf. The degree of support AI gives to an applicant's claim depends in part on the amount of AI's supporting documentation.
Q. What can AI do that other organizations do not already do?
AI's information is valuable in documenting an applicant's asylum claim. Although AI does not claim that its' letters of support actually result in a positive decision for an applicant, lawyers and applicants have often told us that our letters have made the difference. AI's reputation as a respected human rights organization gives us the ability and forum to focus public attention on our refugee concerns. As an international organization with a strong membership base, AIUSA can bring effective pressure on government officials to meet their obligation on behalf of refugees.
Q. Does AIUSA work outside of the US on behalf of refugees?
AIUSA's work is normally restricted to asylum seekers within our own borders. However, AIUSA does communicate and work together with other AI sections on issues of mutual concern. The National Refugee Office in consultation with the International Secretariat does not take a position on US policy, budgets or quotas relating to the resettlement of refugees
